Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair.

AIR NAVIGATION (LICENSING OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT) ORDER, 1938 (REVOCATION) ORDER, 1939.

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (MR. GRIMSTON) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth: —

I have received your Address praying that the Air Navigation [Licensing of Public Transport) Order,1938 {Revocation) Order,1939, be made in the terms of the Draft laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

GEORGE, R.I.

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Ashton-under-Lyne, in the room of Fred Brown Simpson, esquire (deceased).—[Sir Charles Edwards.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HERRING FISHING, FIRTH OF FORTH.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is considering the conditions under which the winter herring fishing in the Firth of Forth will take place; and when he will be in a position to announce the decisions reached as regards area, methods of fishing, and prices?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): This matter will be considered by the Departments concerned but I am not yet in a position to say when it will be possible for an announcement to be made.

Mr. Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the importance of this fishing to Scotland will be borne in mind.

Mr. Colville: Yes, Sir.

FOOD PRODUCTION.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the recent memorandum of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland setting out what they regard as the essential conditions for an adequate production of foodstuffs in Scotland; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that this objective shall be reached with out delay?

Mr. Colville: I have the representations of the National Farmers' Union and Chamber of Agriculture for Scotland under careful consideration in consultation with the other Ministers concerned, and also with the Union and Chamber themselves with whom I have had a meeting. The memorandum covers a wide field and raises questions affecting more than one Department, and I am not in a position to add to statements which have already been made. I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that every consideration will be given to the views expressed.

Mr. Stewart: In order to restore confidence in the coming winter, will my right hon. Friend consider making a very early statement regarding the price of crops now in stack at the farms?

Mr. Colville: I am afraid I cannot add anything to what I have just said, but I assure my hon. Friend that very full consideration has been given to the representations which have been made.

Mr. George Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that the workers want £2 a week, and will he make a definite statement on that as soon as possible?

EVACUATION.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that many local authorities in reception areas are not aware of any instructions received from the Scottish Office requiring them to give special consideration to aged householders in connection with the billeting of evacuees; that large numbers of aged persons were required to take, and are still obliged to keep, evacuees in their homes, with con-


sequent serious effects upon their health; and whether he will issue a special instruction to local authorities designed to safeguard the position of the aged householder?

Mr. Colville: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to him on 12th October. As indicated in that reply, I shall be glad to consider any specific cases which he may have in mind.

Mr. Stewart: Does not my right hon. Friend recollect that in that reply he suggested that local authorities had already been instructed on this matter, and is he aware that I have seen several local authorities since that answer and that they have told me definitely that they have not so been instructed? Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter?

Mr. Colville: I do know that instructions were generally issued. Perhaps my hon. Friend will discuss the matter with me.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the experience of the air-raid in the Forth area has caused the Government to examine afresh the question of classifying the burgh of South Queensferry as an evacuation area as urged by the town council; and whether he is in a position to make a statement thereanent?

Mr. Colville: I have decided that in view of the special position of South Queensferry, North Queensferry and In-verkeithing they should be treated as sending areas under the Government evacuation scheme. Parents of school children have been given information about the arrangements and the registration of children whose parents desire them to be evacuated began yesterday.

Mr. Mathers: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to what areas these children are to be evacuated, and whether it will be easy for their parents to visit them?

Mr. Colville: I would rather not say the exact district, but it will not be very far away from their present homes.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman include other places on the Firth of Forth, such as Alloa and Kincardine, or at least stop sending children to those places which are within a bomb's throw of the Forth Bridge?

Mr. Colville: The hon. Member will recollect that in a relatively small country no place can be declared to be completely safe. I shall be glad to consider any specific proposals, but there is only a limited amount of accommodation in the areas to which the children can be sent.

Mr. Woodburn: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Firth of Forth is definitely a dangerous area and that bombs dropped from 20,000 feet might conceivably land in Alloa or Kincardine, which at the moment are reception areas?

Mr. Colville: Those places are much farther away than the Queensferry area, which I have agreed to evacuate.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman make an inquiry into the position with regard to other villages right on the edge of the area which are affected in just the same way?

CLOSED ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the grave discontent expressed by parents and responsible authorities in Scotland at the closing of elementary schools; and whether he will order the reopening of schools forthwith?

Mr. Colville: I am informed that all primary schools and departments in the reception areas in Scotland are now open, and that the majority of these schools in neutral areas have also been re-opened, although some remain closed pending the completion of the necessary measures of air-raid protection. Permission for the re-opening for all purposes of primary schools and departments in evacuation areas, has not been given, although the re-opening of these schools for purposes of registration, and medical inspection and treatment, has been permitted subject to the numbers on the premises at any one time being kept as low as possible. At schools re-opened for medical purposes meals may be provided to necessitous children. I am aware of the difficulties resulting from the closure of these schools. The question of their limited reopening for lessons, subject to proper safeguards, is at present under consideration.

Mr. McGovern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a considerable number of cases, boys particularly are coming before the juvenile courts and


that there is a large increase in the number of such cases, because there are no schools open during the day for these boys, and that this is a very difficult problem for the parents? Further, is he aware that the Setback in their education is very serious, and will he not consider having the schools opened at the earliest possible moment and clearing those schools which are used for other purposes?

Mr. Colville: I assure the hon. Member that I am aware of the difficulties, but with reference to the question he has just asked, I would point out that the importance of maintaining the evacuation scheme is also very great, and that if all the schools in the sending areas were fully opened, it might tend to draw the children back.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the consideration which he is giving to the matter, and which he has promised for some time, is likely to lead to his being able to give us a definite answer soon?

Mr. Colville: Very soon, but I cannot give any date. A later answer will explain what is being done already with regard to secondary schools.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the city of Glasgow tens of thousands of children have not attended school for the past two months, and will he do something to give them an opportunity of doing so?

Mr. Colville: If the hon. Gentleman will listen to a later answer, he will hear what is being done.

Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact that there are schools on the outskirts of Glasgow practically alongside schools in the county areas of Dumbarton and Renfrewshire, the one lot open and the other closed? Can he not do something in this matter?

Mr. Colville: Perhaps a later answer which I shall give will deal with that matter.

HOUSING.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the names of the local authorities that have agreed and disagreed, respectively, with his recent

circular advising local authorities to suspend housing operations?

Mr. Colville: I have received no communication from any local authority recording either agreement or disagreement with the terms of the circular referred to. Several local authorities, however, have represented to me that it would be in the national interest for them to proceed with certain housing schemes not yet under construction, and I shall give careful consideration to all such representations.

Mr. McGovern: Am I wrong in assuming that the Minister had consulted these local authorities before he issued that circular, and if not, will he consult all the local authorities in Scotland as to whether they agree or disagree with it?

Mr. Colville: This is a matter for which the Government take full responsibility, but I said in the circular that we were prepared to consider any scheme put forward by local authorities on the grounds of national interest. In 14 instances local authorities have made representations to me and I am prepared to consider them.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the city of Glasgow, luxury building is going on now, and if that be so, why should house building be stopped?

Mr. Colville: The city of Glasgow has not so represented.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

BY-PRODUCTS.

Mr. Denville: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will open all available mines and employ all available miners for the purpose of producing coal for by-products necessary for the successful prosecution of the war and the employment of our people?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Efforts are being made, in consultation with both sides in the industry, to secure the necessary output of coal for all purposes.

Mr. Denville: asked the Secretary for Mines, as a concession to motorists, industrial and otherwise, whether he will permit the free use of benzol, of which there is an abundant supply which the Government do not require?

Mr. Lloyd: Motor benzole forms a useful contribution to our supplies of high grade motor spirit, but there does not appear to be any reason why its use should be exempted from the operation of the rationing scheme.

Mr. Denville: Will my hon. Friend consult with the gas companies as to the contribution they can make?

Mr. Lloyd: I am prepared to do that.

Miss Wilkinson: If the Government have any high-grade motor fuel, will they add a little to the present pool petrol, which is rapidly becoming unusable?

Mr. David Adams: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the Government's possession of large potential stocks of coal, they might also deliver some free coal to the population?

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Secretary for Mines whether the by-product plant at Pencoed has commenced production; what is the present output; and how many personnel are employed?

Mr. Lloyd: By the courtesy of the company which is constructing the plant I am able to say that production has not yet commenced. The second and third parts of the question, therefore, do not arise.

Mr. Williams: Have the company given any indication when this is likely to take place?

Mr. Lloyd: They have not given any definite date.

SHORT-TIME WORKING.

Mr. Collindridge: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that some collieries in South Yorkshire are off work one and two days a week; can he state the reason for this; and will he take further immediate steps to have suitable measures adopted to remedy this short-time working in view of the national demands for coal at the present time?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. The hon. Member will appreciate that in the early stages of war a certain amount of dislocation, particularly in transport and shipping, is inevitable; the Department is fully alive to these problems and is taking all possible steps to meet the situation. In the meantime all immediate essential demands for coal are being successfully met.

Mr. Collindridge: Does not the Minister think that the stocking of surplus coal in accordance with the precedent adopted in industrial disputes might serve on this occasion?

Mr. Lloyd: We have asked that there should be stocking wherever possible.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that although there might have been some excuse for it in the early days of the war, there is no longer any justification for the working of short time generally? What does he propose to do about it? Is he going to sit quietly and do nothing and wait until the men and the owners have come to a decision?

Mr. T. Smith: Has the Minister's Department any contact with the managements of these collieries where short time is being worked, both in South and in West Yorkshire?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot say about these particular collieries, but we have been in touch with the owners generally on the question of stocks.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that miners are still losing days intermittently; that this lost time is considerable; and whether he now proposes, in the light of experience, to abandon the scheme for rationing coal, gas and electricity?

Mr. Lloyd: The amount of time lost at collieries during the fortnight ended 14th October was considerably less than for the corresponding fortnight last year. As I indicated during the Debate on the Adjournment on 10th October, I do not consider that rationing is responsible for idle time at pits. Such idle time as exists is due not to rationing but to transportation difficulties. As at present advised, I do not, therefore, propose to abandon the rationing scheme nor to make any further relaxation than that which I announced on Friday.

Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that considerable time is being lost in the pits of Durham; and is he still prepared to carry on with the rationing system, in view of the fact that there is wholesale working of part-time and that a great mass of men are losing employment as a result of it?

Mr. Lloyd: The amount of short time which has been worked for the last fortnight in Durham is considerably less than it was this time last year. I am certainly prepared to discuss the question.

Mr. Lawson: In view of the answer which the hon. Gentleman has given to the effect that he made a statement upon this matter in a recent Debate, and as this is a matter of high policy, can we have a guarantee that those who make this high policy will reconsider the whole situation?

LEPTON EDGE COLLIERY.

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the manager of Lepton Edge Collieries refuses to meet representatives of the Yorkshire Mine Workers' Association to discuss the reinstatement of a workman whose contract has been terminated; that an officer from the Mines Department discussed the question with the manager on 6th September, when he promised to reinstate the workman; that the promise has not yet been honoured and the manager refuses to make any communication about the matter; that such behaviour is likely to have serious results; and, in view of the fact that the Yorkshire Mine Workers' Association has been asked to co-operate with the coalowners in order to secure the maximum production of coal during the war, what steps he proposes to take to deal with colliery officials who refuse such co-operation as is shown in this case?

Mr. Lloyd: The company allege that the workman referred to was discharged on grounds of old age and infirmity. Proper notice having been given, the discharge was legal and I have no power to force his re-engagement. I very much regret that the company have not honoured the promise made on the 6th September to an officer of my Department to re-employ the workman.

Mr. Paling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is not just a recent occurrence, and that for some years this company has refused to settle anything by negotiation and to meet the association; and is he also aware that there is a growing sense of iritation about this business which will sooner or later result in an outburst when it will be too late to do anything?

Mr. T. Williams: In view of the stubborn attitude of the management of this

colliery, which refuses to co-operate either with the miners of Yorkshire or the mine-owners, will the hon. Gentleman take steps to deal with managers of this description who may provoke an area stoppage or even a county stoppage unless some action is taken?

Mr. Lloyd: Of course, the House will appreciate that I have already made a strong statement on the matter.

Mr. Collindridge: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, unless action is taken, the whole of Yorkshire may be involved?

RATIONING.

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is considering suspending the system of coal control in so far as it reduces supplies to householders until such time as a shortage of coal is likely?

Mr. G. Lloyd: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on this subject during the Debate on the Adjournment on 10th October.

Mr. Jenkins: In view of the great extent to which short time is now being worked in the collieries, would the Minister agree to meet the miners' representatives and to discuss the whole matter with them?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether these private conversations could be extended to include the rest of the House?

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Secretary for Mines whether the restrictions in fuel consumption which provide that consumers are limited to 75 per cent. of their pre-war consumption, applies to householders in the reception areas who are housing evacuees and whose fuel requirements for lighting, cooking and heating are thereby considerably increased; and whether he will consider revising them so as to allow of increased allowances of fuel pro rata to the number of evacuees received in any house?

Mr. Lloyd: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on Wednesday, nth October, to the hon. Member for Leyton, West.

EXPORT TRADE.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines whether steps are


being taken to secure the retention and expansion of our export trade in coal; and whether steps are being taken to secure the markets formerly supplied by Poland and subject to the provisions of the Anglo-Polish Coal Trade Agreement?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member may rest assured that all possible steps are being taken to maintain and expand the export of coal.

Mr. Griffiths: What steps are being taken by the hon. Gentleman's Department to organise the industry for this purpose? Is he just leaving it to the owners?

Mr. Lloyd: I would not like this afternoon to go into detail on this matter. There are reasons why it is better not to do so, but I can assure the hon. Member that it is under very careful consideration in connection with the Ministry of Economic Warfare, as well as my own Department.

Mr. Griffiths: Who is considering this matter? Are the men being consulted?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think the men are being consulted as to the actual destination of the output of coal, but they are being carefully consulted as to methods of increasing the output.

PETROL RATIONING.

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that many Scottish traders who have commercial vehicles on the road carrying goods as samples have been compelled to withdraw these vehicles due to lack of petrol; and will he inquire into this position and see that such traders from Scotland are not penalised as against English firms?

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Member is referring to private cars used by commercial travellers I would refer him to the reply I gave on 17th October to a question by the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons). The arrangements referred to in that answer apply to Scotland equally with England.

Mr. McGovern: If I can show the hon. Gentleman evidence of the penalisation of these firms, will he give consideration to the matter?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, but I am not sure whether the hon. Member has yet appreciated the effect of the new arrangement which is coming into force.

Mr. McGovern: Yes, but in spite of that, is there not penalisation?

Mr. Markham: asked the Secretary for Mines what representations he has received from the Nottingham Streamline Taximeter-cab Owners Association on the subject of petrol allowances; and whether he has decided to raise this from 50 to 90 gallons per month per taximeter-cab, as is already the case in London?

Mr. Lloyd: The representations I have-received are that Nottingham taxis should receive the same monthly allowance of petrol as the London taxis. At the end of September I reviewed the position in regard to provincial taxis and agreed to an increase in the maximum grant to-bring it up to the same level as for London for taxis of the same horse-power. The taxis employed by the Nottingham Streamline Taxi Service are of considerably lower horse-power than those used in London and they have been given an allowance appropriate to their horsepower. As at present advised, therefore, I regret that I cannot see my way to grant any further concession.

Mr. Markham: Is the Minister aware that 50 gallons for a 12 horse-power car would not take the vehicle nearly as far as 90 gallons for a 16 horse-power car; and in view of the special circumstances in the Nottingham area, will be receive special representations so that the whole question can be gone into thoroughly?

Mr. Lloyd: I am prepared to consider representations.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Will the hon Gentleman consider rationing petrol, as far as London is concerned, on the basis of the man and not of the cab, having regard to the fact that the London County Council has commandeered so many cabs that cabs are now being what we call doubled; that is to say, there are two men to a cab; and would he consider this matter having regard to the driver and not the vehicle?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of the difficulty which is caused by the reauisitioning,. but that is a different question and I would not like to give an undertaking of the kind for which the hon. Member asks.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will consider an alteration in the date of issue of petrol-ration books, so that the coupons in each book commence to be available on the first day of the month?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. I have already decided in connection with the next issue of ration books to give effect to the suggestion contained in the question and also to indicate on the coupons contained in the ration books the period of validity.

SOUTH AFRICA (HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are contemplating a long-term programme for the economic development of the High Commissioner territories and the welfare of the people concerned?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Eden): There has been substantial development expenditure in the High Commission Territories within recent years, and work is still proceeding on some of the schemes adopted following the commissions of inquiry by Sir Alan Pim, including in particular an important scheme for dealing with soil erosion in Basutoland. The rate of further progress will have to be considered in the light of present financial circumstances, but as my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, stated on nth October, His Majesty's Government are anxious that social service and welfare work in the Colonial Empire shall be maintained to the utmost extent that war conditions permit.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the House have an opportunity of being informed as to the discussions with the Government of the Union of South Africa in regard to the economic development of these territories?

Mr. Eden: That is quite a different question.

Mr. Paling: In view of the magnitude of the problem, is not the work that is being done rather small, and will the light hon. Gentleman undertake not to make the war an excuse for not doing what is permitted to be done now?

Mr. Eden: If the hon. Gentleman studies my answer, he will see that I am in entire agreement with him, but I think experience shows that all expenditure is relative in these times.

RHODESIA-NYASALAND (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether it is proposed to publish the native evidence submitted to the Royal Commission on the future of the Rhodesias?

Mr. Eden: It is not contemplated that evidence submitted to the Rhodesia-Nyasaland Royal Commission should be published. I understand that full reports of all the evidence given in public in the three territories were published in the local Press at the time.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will it be possible for this evidence to be placed in the Library of the House?

Mr. Eden: It is extremely voluminous, and I am reluctant to incur any expense, but I will look into the question.

WAR RISKS INSURANCE.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in connection with the figure of £8,750,000, which was given as the total amount on the 9th October in connection with the commodities war risk insurance, he can explain the smallness of the amount; and whether he can give an assurance that the necessary insurances are being effected to comply with the legislation which has already been passed?

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much has been received in premiums on the commodity insurance scheme; and what is the total amount payable?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The total amount of the premiums paid up to yesterday in respect of policies issued under the commodity insurance scheme was £13,300,000. Some traders may have postponed payment of premiums pending the consideration of applications for exemption of certain classes of goods from compulsory insurance and may have taken advantage


of the arrangements for payment of the three month's premium by monthly instalments. Precise information as to the total amount payable is not available; but, taking into account all relevant factors, I have no reason to think that any substantial number of traders are failing to comply with the law. Steps will, however, be taken to enforce compliance where necessary.

Mr. De la Bére: Is not this premium too high? Could my right hon. Friend give some basis on which it was arrived at, as there are many complaints that it is too high?

Mr. Stanley: The House will recollect that we debated this subject a few days ago in the House, and that I did then give the assumption. Also hon. Members will recollect that, in view of the fact that September passed without damage from air raids, arrangements have been made to make a repayment to traders in respect of one month's premium.

Mr. Markham: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to extend war risks insurance to works of art, including pictures?

Mr. Stanley: By the War Risks Insurance (General Exceptions) Order, dated 22nd September, 1939, goods of the general description referred to by my hon. Friend were declared not to be insurable under Part II of the War Risks Insurance Act, 1939. This decision was arrived at after consideration of representations from the interests concerned.

Mr. Markham: In view of the fact that the opinion of the interests concerned has changed, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the whole question?

Mr. Stanley: I could not do that. I had very long negotiations with these interests, and it was very strongly represented to me by all of them that they should be excluded from the Bill. That has now been done.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

POLAND.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to safeguard the position of British exporters who have

supplied goods to Poland; and whether, in the interest of maintaining the effective organisation of the firms concerned for the sake of the export trade, he will make available for the liquidation of Polish commercial debts any balances due in respect of imports to this country from Poland?

Mr. Stanley: While I recognise the hardship of the position of exporters to whom money is owed from Poland, and have carefully considered the suggestion made by the right hon. Member, it would involve undue interference with the rights of Polish creditors. Moreover, it would not be practicable to make a distribution which would be equitable among the various claimants.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out no hope of getting rid of these balances, which are causing very great difficulty and em- barrassment in certain sections of the trade?

Mr. Stanley: I would not like to say that I can hold out no hope. We are looking into the problem, but the right hon. Gentleman will realise the extraordinary difficulties of it, in view of the position of Poland to-day.

RUSSIA.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the President of the Board of Trade, whether in any trade agreement with Soviet. Russia, he will stipulate that all merchandise during the duration of the war shall be carried in Soviet ships?

Mr. Stanley: The possibilities of employing Soviet ships will, of course, be fully explored in any trade negotiations that may take place with the Soviet Government.

Sir A. Knox: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the ships would be much more usefully so employed than in conveying materials to Germany in the Baltic?

Mr. Stanley: British ships are now going to be employed in bringing timber from Archangel to this country, and I should have thought there could be no better employment for them.

Mr. Thorne: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the Russian Government are a milch cow for Germany?

EXPORT TRADE.

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the intensified campaign, at the instance of German firms, for the promotion of German trade in Holland and Scandinavian countries; whether appropriate measures are being adopted to maintain British competitive power in these markets; and whether as far as possible, facilities for conveyance of mails, transmission of cables and transport of samples are receiving the constant attention of his Department?

Mr. Stanley: I have received reports of the matter indicated by my hon. Friend. His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of promoting the United Kingdom export trade both to the countries mentioned and to other overseas markets. With this object, my Department is opening discussions with representatives of major exporting industries with a view to facilitating their operations. As regards the last part of the question, I am in constant touch with the appropriate Departments on matters affecting export trade.

Sir P. Hannon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that German industrial organisations are circularising firms in neutral countries offering certain facilities for the development of German trade as against trade with this country?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that, but there is a certain amount of doubt as to whether the Germans are in fact living up to the promises which they have made in those circulars.

CHRISTMAS SHOPPING.

Mr. Hannah: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of perplexity in the country as to whether or not it is desirable to stimulate Christmas shopping this year, in view of military necessities; and will he make some pronouncement on this matter?

Mr. Stanley: It will be the duty, as I know it will be the desire, of everyone in this country to respond to the appeal which will be made in due course for subscriptions to loans to finance our war expenditure. Subject to this, it is desirable that, so far as possible, the public should continue to buy in the usual way

so as to reduce unemployment. The diversion of the productive resources of the country to war needs is bound to proceed progressively, and anything like a complete cessation of normal purchases for Christmas needs would not be in the national interest.

Mr. John Morgan: Can the right hon. Gentleman not advise other Departments to have a let-up on some of the restrictions that are taking place, where supplies are ample?

CIVILIAN NECESSITIES.

Miss Wilkinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will undertake a rapid survey in order to ascertain to what extent the sudden rise in commodity prices is due to the uncoordinated commandeering of the productive supply of certain industries by Government Departments; and whether it is possible to ease the situation by organising a definite supply of rationed necessities for civilian use?

Mr. Stanley: In answer to a question by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) on 18th October, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply described the coordination machinery set up to deal with priorities, which is, of course, subject to any general directions given by the economic organisation described in the House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the same day. Under that machinery, arrangements are already being made to allocate productive capacity and raw materials for civilian uses, including exports.

Miss Wilkinson: However beautiful the plans are, is it not a fact that they are not working very well; and could the right hon. Gentleman look into the way in which the productive capacity of certain industries is being hampered?

Mr. Stanley: I am having discussions with various industries, primarily with regard to exports, and I shall also take up any questions on other civilian use.

BLACK-OUT CLOTH.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make a statement with regard to the putting on sale of a cheap and effective blackout cloth?

Mr. Stanley: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this matter, but I hope to do so shortly.

IRISH LINEN.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to maintain and develop the important export trade in linen from Northern Ireland?

Mr. Stanley: I am anxious that this trade should be maintained and the matter is receiving active consideration in consultation with the Government of Northern Ireland. A meeting of representatives of the Irish linen trade and the interested Departments took place last week under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both the trade unionists and the employers have practically resigned from the committee owing to the fact that nothing is being done to preserve this trade?

Mr. Stanley: I do not know to what committee the hon. Member is referring, but the people who came over to see my right hon. Friend were glad of the chance of a discussion and the help we promised to give them in getting the raw material for the industry.

Mr. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that they were not only glad, but satisfied?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir, I think very satisfied.

TELEPHONE SERVICE (FOREIGN CALLS).

Brigadier-General Spears: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that commercial firms in neutral countries desiring to telephone to Germany can do so without any difficulty and that in France approved firms can obtain a permit to telephone to their customers and suppliers abroad; and whether, in view of the importance of helping the trade of this country, he will withdraw the censorship ban on telephoning abroad and institute machinery whereby approved firms desiring to make bona fide business calls shall be allowed to do so?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The proposal is being

reviewed with the other Government Departments concerned.

Brigadier-General Spears: How soon may we expect the result of this review?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I will let my hon. and gallant Friend know.

COMMODITY CONTROLLERS.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will issue a list showing the names of the controllers of all the different commodities and, in such cases as these gentlemen were not previously Government officials, their business interests prior to their assuming their present duties and to what extent these interests continue?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I have been asked to reply. In making these appointments the Government seek to take advantage of the special qualifications of those whose services are at their disposal. They are confident that those appointed will not allow any private interests they may have, or have had, to conflict with the interests of the public service. The decision in any individual case is, of course, a matter for the appointing Minister.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: May I, in the first place, ask whether my right hon. and gallant Friend will publish the list which is asked for; and, in asking that, may I be allowed to say that, of course, I cast no reflection at all on any of these gentlemen?

Captain Crookshank: I am sure that neither my hon. Friend nor anybody else in this House wishes to cast any reflection on gentlemen who are doing these great public services. As regards the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has appointed no controllers at all, and I said in my reply that hon. Members should ask individual Ministers.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Is it not perfectly reasonable that hon. Members and the House should have the names and the qualifications of all these people without going to the bother of asking questions of each individual Minister?

Captain Crookshank: The answer to that is that replies have already been given by some Ministers to this very question.

Sir Percy Harris: Is it not possible that there are so many of these controllers that it is impossible to keep pace with their appointments and to know what they are, who they are, and what they do?

Mr. Gallacher: Would it not be possible to get their ages and to find out whether any of them are as young as the Minister of Shipping?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

SPECIAL ALLOWANCES.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will refer to the Military Service (Special Allowances) Advisory Committee the question of the desirability of the issue of a supplemental rent allowance to men in the Army, in all cases where the rent exceeds one-fifth of the family allowance?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It is the practice of the committee, in considering whether financial hardship due to service exists in any case, to address themselves to the position in which the household is left after all the irreducible commitments, including rent, have been met. This seems to me to be preferable to any rigid formula of the character suggested.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are cases in the country where there are nine children in the family and the rent is 20s., leaving 19s. over; and does he not think that there ought to be direct rent allowances in all cases where rent forms more than one-fifth of the family's income?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not think that the case of an individual soldier having nine children is common, but I think that the formula that I have described is generally more to the advantage of the recipient than the formula suggested in the question.

Mr. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair that every case where there are more than three children ought to go to a hardship committee?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I was asked whether I could substitute a particular formula

for another one, and I said that I think the method which I indicated was more advantageous. There is a Special Allowances Committee, from which more advantage would accrue to the recipients than from the method suggested in the question.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no alteration of a formula will be satisfactory, and will he, in view of the Debate, which showed that the allowances were far too meagre, reconsider the whole matter?

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to this: there is no question of substituting one method for another; the question applies to cases where the rent exceeds one-fifth of the family's income and asks whether additional allowances can be given?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have said that it is the practice of the committee, when considering whether financial hardship due to service exists, to address themselves to the position in which the household is left after the rent and other irreducible commitments have been paid. I have said that that is more advantageous than the proposal in the question.

GREATCOATS.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can assure the House that each member of His Majesty's Forces who has been embarked for France has had an issue of a greatcoat; and, if not, will he state the reason why?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It has come to notice that, for some reason which is not clear, about 200 men arrived in France without greatcoats. Steps were at once taken to make good the deficiency.

Mr. Dobbie: Can we have an assurance that the Minister knows that all the men on the Western Front have had that issue?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. There was an omission in the case of only 200 men out of this large number who arrived without greatcoats, but they were issued as soon as the omission was discovered.

MATHEMATICIANS.

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will enrol as soon as possible some mathe-


maticians who are not already employed and put them through a course of gunnery, so as to fit them to instruct at the various schools where there may be a lack of mathematical training among instructors?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The number of mathematicians who have enrolled in the Army Officers' Emergency Reserve is sufficient to meet present needs, and they are being called up as required.

NEWS CENSORSHIP.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to state to what Minister Sir Walter Monckton is responsible for his work in connection with the censorship of news?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): As I stated on 3rd October, the censors in dealing with particular items of news will be guided by the directions of the Departments concerned with the subject matter of such news. To facilitate the giving of such directions members of the staffs of the various Departments have been specially attached to the Press and Censorship Bureau. The expenditure of the bureau will be accounted for by the Home Office; and, subject to the arrangement just described by which each Minister will remain responsible for the handling of news concerning his own Department, the Director-General will be answerable to the Home Secretary.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Prime Minister whether he can arrange a day on which questions to the Minister of Shipping will have precedence?

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the temporary discontinuance of Monday sittings of Parliament, alternative arrangements can be made for questions to be dealt with by the Minister of Agriculture at a time likely to ensure such questions being reached?

The Prime Minister: I realise the difficulties in regard to oral questions, but I would remind the House that we are working under unusual conditions. I desire, however, to meet the convenience

of hon. Members as far as possible and suggest that the order of questions should be considered through the usual channels.

Miss Wilkinson: Are not questions to the Ministry of Shipping a special case in view of the fact that it is a new Ministry dealing with a vital industry; and in view of the fact that the present Minister at his first interview with the shipowners very largely handed the Ministry over to them, is it not necessary that there should be some public control so far as questions from Members can get information?

Sir T. Moore: On a point of Order. As the House is normally entitled to five hours' questions a week, would it not be possible to increase the time permitted to questions on the three days on which we are sitting so that all Members can question the Government on those subjects in which the country and the House are particularly interested?

Mr. Speaker: I doubt very much whether the House would agree with that view.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Having regard to the fact that the Minister of Shipping has now appointed an adviser in the shape of a shipowner, and that his Parliamentary Private Secretary is also a shipowner, will the Prime Minister agree to appoint a representative of the workpeople also to advise the Minister?

The Prime Minister: That is a different question. If the hon. Member will put it down I will try to give him an answer.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SITTINGS).

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Prime Minister whether he will collect the opinions of Members upon the advisability of altering the normal hour of Adjournment to an earlier hour than 11 p.m. in the interests of the staff employed in the House who are experiencing difficulty in reaching their homes during black-out conditions?

The Prime Minister: Provided the necessary Government Business can be disposed of I should see no objection to any arrangement to secure the earlier rising of the House in view of present conditions, which might be come to after consultation through the usual channels.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS (REMUNERATION).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of setting up an inquiry into the question of salaries paid to all wartime administrators, with a view to bringing them more into accord with public opinion and to levelling up the numerous anomalies as between paid and unpaid service?

Captain Crookshank: I have been asked to reply. The remuneration of persons appointed in a temporary capacity to wartime posts in Government Departments is carefully co-ordinated by the Treasury, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is satisfied that the rates approved are fair and reasonable. In these circumstances he does not think that any useful purpose would be served by an inquiry of the kind suggested.

Mr. Garro Jones: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not see that unpaid service never comes before the Treasury for sanction, and therefore there can be no co-ordination between unpaid service and paid service, and as that is one of the matters which is giving rise to the greatest amount of public discontent, will he make some inquiry into that aspect of the matter?

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Member is going beyond the question which is on the Paper. Of course there is coordination, whether the service is paid or unpaid. Appointments are not made without the cognisance of the Treasury.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is it not then correct to say that in the case of unpaid appointments the sanction of the Treasury is necessary?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that many people, men and women of ability but no means, are offering their services to the State but find that people of means are occupying a considerable number of the paid posts; and will he instruct all Departments to fill all posts, other things being equal, with people who need to earn a living?

Captain Crookshank: The selection of persons for employment in the Government service is on the bases of suitability and qualifications and I could not agree that the most suitable and best qualified candidate should be refused appointment on the grounds suggested in the question.

Miss Wilkinson: In that case, would the Minister explain why so many of the more suitable applicants are refused, on the ground that they have no titles or have not dined with the correct people?

EXPENDITURE.

Mr. Jennings: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in the public interest he will now consider the formation of an economy committee of suitable business men to enquire into the wasteful expenditure of many Government Departments?

Mr. Gledhill: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now consider the appointment of a full-time economy committee consisting mainly of accountants and business men with powers to scrutinise all Departmental accounts, and to report upon their organisation and staffing?

Captain Crookshank: As my right hon. Friend has already informed the House, the Government are anxious to obtain the help of suitably qualified business men in examining the expenditure particularly of new or largely expanded Departments; but he thinks he can make more effective use of their services by inviting them to undertake specific investigations, as he has already done in some instances, than by the method suggested by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Jennings: Is this to be an immediate operation, or how long will it take before these people are employed?

Captain Crookshank: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "immediate operation," but presumably he will recollect that financial members have been added both to the Air and Supply Ministries in recent weeks.

Mr. Gledhill: May I ask whether this committee will also consider the organisation of the various Departments?

Captain Crookshank: I think the hon. Member must have misheard my answer. There is no committee.

Mr. Woodburn: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that the appointment of business men would be the worst thing, because a good business man ought to make as good a profit as possible and encourage spending?

BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the arrangement made by the Treasury with the British directors of the Bank for International Settlements not to attend any meetings of the board without agreement with the Treasury and that they will not in any case during the war meet the German members, it is his intention to ascertain when the meetings of the board will be held, and if the German members propose to attend?

Captain Crookshank: As the British directors will not attend any meetings without agreement with the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be made aware of the date and circumstances of any proposed meeting of the board.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say by whom he will be made aware, by the directors or by the Bank itself?

Captain Crookshank: I should say by the directors when they get notice of the meeting.

COINAGE (FARTHINGS).

Mr. Tomlinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can arrange for the minting and distribution of a sufficient number of farthings for those districts where this coinage is not in common use, to avoid the overcharging of small quantities of goods where the price-fixing orders of the Government necessitate the use of this coin?

Captain Crookshank: The issue of additional bronze coin is regulated on the basis of requisitions by the banks, who alone can gauge the net requirements of their customers. All demands for farthings received up to date by the Mint from the banks have been met. The quantity of farthings in circulation is of the order of several hundred million coins.

Mr. Tomlinson: Is the Minister aware that the banks are not likely to be aware of the necessity for these small coins, and that the lack of them means that all prices will be increased to poor people by more than a farthing because of the lack of farthings?

Captain Crookshank: I have just said that the banks will be able to gauge the requirements of their customers. That has always been the case in the past and the fact that hundreds of millions of these coins are in circulation proves that.

Mr. McGovern: They are all in Scotland.

BANK RATE.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the continued high level of the Bank Rate is causing grave concern in the minds of all sections of the community because they fear it will result in the financing of the war imposing a crushing burden of debt on the country; and will he take steps to restore to Parliament the prerogative of creating the money necessary to finance the war in the national interest?

Captain Crookshank: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on the subject of the Bank Rate in the Debate on the War Budget and in particular to his assurance that it was the Government's policy to borrow from the genuine savings of the people at the lowest rate that we can. If the suggestion in the second part of my hon. Friend's question is that our note circulation should be made by the Treasury and not by the Bank of England, my right hon. Friend does not think that any advantage would be gained by such a change.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say why the Government have taken no steps to control the most important of all commodities— money? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] On a point of Order, this is a very important matter. At the moment we are paying 150 per cent. more for Treasury bills than we did on 19th August and why is such profiteering allowed?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. Buchanan: Is it not possible to get an answer to a supplementary question?

Captain Crookshank: I understood that the hon. Member was putting a point of Order. If I may, in spite of that, give him an answer, it would be to this effect, that if he will study the statement which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made on the subject of the Bank Rate—if that is what he has in mind—he will find there the explanation of the Government's action in this matter.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Having regard to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I beg to give notice that I shall raise this subject on the Adjournment.

Mr. John Wilmot: May I be allowed to put a supplementary question? Is the right hon. and gallant Member aware that there is a very widespread feeling among the industrial and commercial community that the Bank Rate at the present juncture is too high, and will he take advice from other banking interests?

Mr. Speaker: That is another question.

TREASURY (PUBLIC LIAISON OFFICER).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the appointment of a liaison officer between the Treasury and the British public?

Captain Crookshank: My right hon. Friend sees no need for an additional appointment of this character.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the little men and the little women in this country are very much concerned in this matter, and why should not they have contact with the Treasury? Is he further aware of the danger which arises from the dead hand of the Treasury, which absolutely suppresses all constructive effort in this country? May I have an answer?

Captain Crookshank: I was wondering whether there was any need for an additional appointment in view of the fact that there is already a liaison officer at the Treasury.

Mr. De la Bère: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman name that gentleman? No one is aware who he is. Will he give me an answer?

TREASURY BILLS.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will fix a maximum discount rate of 20s. per cent. For Treasury bills for the duration of the war, or if this is impracticable whether he will impose a direct tax on the discounting of such bills amounting to the difference between the actual discount rate and £1 whenever the rate is above the latter figure?

Captain Crookshank: My right hon. Friend does not regard the hon. Member's first suggestion as a practicable one. As regards the second, he has already indicated in reply to the hon. Members question of the 17th October that the trading profits on Treasury bills are liable to the same taxation as all other trading profits, and he can see no good reason for distinguishing them for further taxation.

Mr. Stokes: As, in effect, the Minister turned down both those proposals, why should not the Government in fact finance the war out of Government-created money free of interest, having regard to the fact that this country is no longer on gold?

NATIONAL ECONOMY.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to secure economy and to make even a slight improvement in old age pensions, he will consider cuts in the expenditure of this House, such as using cheaper writing paper, having fewer fires and inviting hon. Members to travel third-class?

Captain Crookshank: The possibility of effecting such economies will be borne in mind, and I should welcome any action which hon. Members themselves feel able to take to that end in matters within their own control. The savings resulting from these as from other economies, however, will in accordance with ordinary doctrine be applied to help the national effort as a whole rather than to any special purpose.

Mr. Hannah: Would not any additional economy on the part of Members of Parliament be enormously appreciated by the country, if only as a gesture?

Mr. Gallacher: If any economies are made can we be assured that the money will go to increase old age pensions?

SOCIAL SERVICES.

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of our social service benefits since the Great War, covering education, National Health Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, public assistance, unemployment assistance, pensions, and war pensions, have been based on the cost of living?

Captain Crookshank: With the exception of Great War pensions, none of the social service benefits mentioned in the question are governed by provisions for automatic revision with fluctuations in the cost of living. Great War pensions were so related in the 1919 Warrant, though no reduction in them corresponding to the subsequent fall in the cost of living has, in fact, been made.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider, as an interim measure pending an increase in old age pensions, the possibility of paying to every old age pensioner in the week before Christmas a bonus of £1 or more, in addition to the weekly pension, and thus provide during that season some temporary alleviation of the needs of old persons?

Captain Crookshank: The Government do not feel able to introduce the legislation which would be necessary to give effect to this suggestion.

Mr. Garro Jones: Have the Government finally abandoned the idea of giving an increase to the old age pensioners and even of giving them a Christmas bonus of the kind indicated in the question?

Captain Crookshank: That supplementary question raises quite a different matter. I have answered the second part of the hon. Member's question.

Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consult with the Prime Minister with a view to the giving of time facilities for the passage of a Bill on this matter before the House rises?

EXCESS PROFITS TAX (SHIPPING INDUSTRY).

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the excessive profits which were made in the shipping industry during the Great War, he will differentiate between ships that are built and/or purchased to replace ships that have been lost at sea, and shipping companies which purchase and sail ships for the purpose of making profits on such transactions; and whether he will see that all transactions coming under the second category shall be subjected to the Excess Profits Tax?

Captain Crookshank: The distinction which the hon. Member suggests appears to correspond broadly to the distinction between capital and revenue gains, which was explained in the replies which I gave on 4th October, and which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on 17th October to questions asked by the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) and by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). Revenue gains will be subject to Excess Profits Tax. I do not think I can usefully add anything to those replies.

ARMED FORCES (CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES).

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what would be the estimated cost of increasing to 5s. a week the allowance for each child of members serving in His Majesty's Forces?

Captain Crookshank: I regret that there are not sufficient data for an accurate estimate to be made.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: In view of the great importance and the interest there is on all sides of the House that this matter should be dealt with, cannot the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give some indication of what the additional cost would be?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir, because, first of all, one would have to know how many men would be likely to be requiring it in all the Armed Forces and, secondly, the number of children that those men might have. Without those two facts it would be almost impossible to make a calculation.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Would not the Government be able to make some estimate?

Viscountess Astor: Is it not a fact that there is sufficient data before the Government to show that no child can live on the present allowance?

Mr. Lipson: On what principle have the Government worked, in fixing the particular figures now obtaining?

CZECH REFUGEE TRUST.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in certain cases the friends of would-be refugees from Czecho-Slovakia have deposited with the Treasury, through the Czech Refugee Trust, substantial sums to cover the cost of their transit to this country and subsequent settlement overseas and, in view of the cancellation of all British visas to refugees since the outbreak of war, they have been endeavouring, without success, to recover these sums; and will he arrange for the immediate release of these moneys where desired by the depositors?

Captain Crookshank: No such deposits have been made with the Treasury. If there are cases in which such deposits have been made with the voluntary societies or with the trustees of the Czech Refugee Trust Fund, the matter would appear to be one which might be taken up with the trustees.

Miss Rathbone: Is not the Minister aware that, in certain cases, a reply was received from the Treasury refusing to remit these sums, and that some of these persons have already lost financially owing to the fall in the value of the pound?

EVACUATION (BILLETING ALLOWANCES).

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has been able to give further consideration to the discrepancy between the billeting allowance of £11s. per week for evacuated civil servants, covering lodging and two meals per day, and the billeting allowance of 5s. per week to householders on whom evacuated teachers

are billeted; and whether, in view of the heavy charges falling upon teachers who have to provide their own board in the reception areas and maintain their home and family elsewhere, he is now prepared to place them on an equality with evacuated civil servants?

Captain Crookshank: Civil servants who are not householders are, in general, required, after an initial period, normally of a fortnight, to repay the allowance of 21s. paid to their billetors. The position of those who are householders is to be reviewed, and the question of the contribution to be required of them is to be the subject of early consideration. When a decision on this issue is taken the position of teachers will be further considered.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Baird Trust Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935, AND GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ACT, 1935.

3.46 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for India and Burma (Sir Hugh O'Neill): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (High Court Judges) (Amendment) Order, 1939, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
This is the first of five Orders which form the subject of Addresses to His Majesty. They all provide for Amendments in matters of detail to the existing Orders which have already been passed by the House. If you have no objection, Mr. Speaker, and if the House agrees, I propose to deal with them all in one short statement.
The first, which I am now moving, relates to the High Court Judges (Amendment) Order. When the principal Order was framed for the purposes of prescribing the salaries to be drawn by certain judges of High Courts in India, provision was inadvertently omitted for the overseas pay to which those judges had hitherto been entitled. The object of this Amending Order is to make good this omission, in the case of judges appointed since the Act came into force whose emoluments are governed by the Order. The amount involved is £13 6s. 8d. a month.
The second Order is the Family Pension Funds (Amendment) Order. Its purpose is to provide for the situation brought about by the recall to active service of certain Commissioners for the Indian Family Pension Funds. Two of the Commissioners of one fund have been recalled to duty in India, and the Secretary of State has, therefore, terminated their appointments. As it is desired to reappoint them when they are again in a position to carry out the duties of Commissioners, the Amendment offers facilities for the filling of their posts on a temporary basis.
The third Order deals with Governors' allowances and privileges. The following are the objects of this Order: (1) To enable the Secretary of State to deal equitably with such cases as that of Sir John Herbert, Governor-Elect of Bengal,

who, because his predecessor, Sir John Woodhead, will not have held office for one complete year, is not, under the Order as it stands, at present entitled to any grant for the renewal of furnishings in Government houses; (2) To make an adjustment in the method of dealing with the deferred pay due to members of a Governor's bodyguard; (3) To rectify small omissions or oversights relating to leave allowance of a Governor's surgeon, the rate of conversion in sterling of a Governor's leave salary and the cost of stationery and printing in Madras; (4) To increase the contract grant to the Governor of Bengal by 10,000 rupees, which is about £750 per annum; (5) To increase by 2,400 rupees per annum the grant to the Governor of the Punjab for the maintenance of motor cars. This increase is counterbalanced by a reduction of the tour grant by the same amount.
The fourth Order is the Adaptation of Acts of Parliament (Amendment No. 2) Order. Its purpose is to extend by a further six months the period, expiring on 30th November next, during which Burma goods enjoy exemption from the application of the Import Duties Act, 1932, pending the conclusion of a trade agreement between the United Kingdom and Burma. The date on which the exemption was to cease has been postponed by successive Amending Orders, so as to give time for the conclusion of a trade agreement. The outbreak of war has naturally delayed the trade agreement, and consequently an extension of time is necessary.
The last of these Motions concerns the Existing Railway Funds Order, which deals with the allocation of certain railway funds as between India and Burma, arising out of the separation of the two countries. The final figure has now been ascertained and takes the place of the provisional figure in the existing Order.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: The right hon. Gentleman named one amount of money involved, and I would like to know whether any substantial cost is involved in the re-adjustment of the privilege allowances such as bodyguard appointments. With regard to the question of the entertainment allowances, I would like to know whether it is a re-adjustment or whether it involves any substantial


increase in the charges on the Revenue. The other remark I have to make is with reference to the Burma agreement. This involves Burma making an agreement under the Ottawa Agreements scheme for preferential trade with this country. I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman contemplates that Burma legislature will be given to a free agreement on this matter with this country, or whether he contemplates that the Government of Burma will have to do something so objectionable as in the case of the Government of India Act, namely by certification, to carry through the Tariff Act.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: On the fourth Order, could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has considered the most convenient way of dealing with this matter? This is one of a series of amending Orders, and, as far as it can now be foreseen, it is possible that it may be followed by others. It occurs to me to ask whether the date might be related to the actual conclusion of the agreement between Burma and England, and whether that might be a more convenient process, instead of the Minister coming to the House every six months.

3.52 p.m.

Sir H. O'Neill: With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), I do not think at this stage it would be practicable to put in a definite date, because we do not know what that date will be. After all, the outbreak of war has made it impossible for the Burma-United Kingdom Trade Agreement to be concluded, and I must say that in the present circumstances it is wise to postpone it for six months, although, of course, it is possible that it may require further extension. That, perhaps, will be the time to see whether the hon. Member's suggestion with regard to fixing a time or a date will be practicable. With regard to the first point raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in which he asked about the Order dealing with Government allowances and privileges and what amount of money that involved, I think it would be roughly correct to say that they are all adjustments with one exception, that exception being the increase in the contract grant

to the Governor of Bengal by 10,000 rupees—that is £750—per annum. Apart from that, there are adjustments such as the adjustment in the method of dealing with the Governor's bodyguard and matters of that sort. The amount involved would be very little.

Mr. Benn: Seven hundred and fifty pounds a year?

Sir H. O'Neill: Yes, it would be very little over that sum. The right hon. Gentleman also asked, when the Burma-United Kingdom Trade Agreement came to be settled, whether the Burma legislature would have a free right to deal with it or whether it would be dealt with by certification as under the Government of India Act. That is rather a hypothetical question and is one, perhaps, which it is wise not to answer definitely until we know exactly what the terms of the proposed trade agreement are.

3.55 p.m.

Major Milner: I am not altogether clear about the allowances to Governors for renewals and furnishings. Are those all in the nature of increases and are they in respect of moneys expended or to be expended? If they are all increases, it is rather remarkable that all of them should be over-spent.

Sir H. O'Neill: They are not increases, but merely different ways of putting various sums of money at a maximum. The proposal in future is to grant a lump sum covering the whole period, which can be reduced, if necessary, by order of the Secretary of State.

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Captain Dugdale.]

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Family Pension Funds) (Amendment) Order, 1939, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—(Sir H. O'Neill.)

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Captain Dugdale.]

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of


India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Governors' Allowances and Privileges) (Amendment) Order, 1939, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Sir H. O'Neill.]

Mr. Benn: It is unfortunate that we still have to come to this House of Commons in order to settle these Indian questions, and it does not seem to be a very fortunate moment to ask for an additional sumptuary allowance of this kind at this juncture.

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Captain Dugdale.]

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Adaptation of Acts of Parliament) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1939, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Sir H. O'Neill.]

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Captain Dugdale.]

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Existing Railway Funds) Order, 1939, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Sir H. O'Neill.]

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Captain Dugdale.]

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

PERSONAL INJURIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1939.

3.59 p.m.

Mrs. Adamson: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, 1939, dated 14th September, 1939, made under Section 1 of the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, a copy of which Scheme was presented to this House on the 15th day of September last, be annulled.
The Act was originally passed when international tension was acute and when we were all labouring under great mental strain because we feared the outbreak of war. I do not think there was so much attention directed to, or criticism of, the Measure as there otherwise would have been in ordinary circumstances. Moreover, when the Bill was introduced atten-

tion was drawn to the fact that when the scheme was laid before the House it would come under the same kind of procedure as an ordinary Order in Council and that the House would either have to accept it or reject it in its entirety. Under the scheme dated 14th September, 1939, injury allowances, normally for not longer than six months, are based on incapacity for work, and pensions are based on serious and long disablement. Both, however, are restricted to persons gainfully employed. Civil Defence volunteers or certain other classes. I am a member of the Standing Joint Committee of Industrial Women's Organisations, which represents over 1,500,000 working-class women—housewives, trade unionists, industrial and professional women workers and co-operators. We are deeply concerned about this scheme, and we take strong objection to certain provisions, particularly as they affect women and children.
I shall deal with some of these points, particularly those relating to injury and pension allowances to wives, the important question of children's allowances and the position of the unmarried mother, the discrepancy between the maximum pensions payable to men and women and the omission from the scheme of large sections of the community. Let us take the position of the housewives, that vast army of the great unpaid. They perform work of the highest national importance; they run the households of this nation; they keep the home fires burning, look after the comfort of the husband, and rear healthy, happy children for the State. Who will deny that they have made a valuable contribution to the well-being of the country?
How do they fare under this scheme? In Part II wives, unless gainfully employed or Civil Defence volunteers, are not entitled to injury allowances, but under Part IV (Pensions for other classes), allowances in certain cases may be paid in respect of injured wives. If a wife has sustained an injury which has caused her serious and prolonged disablement, and the person for whom she is performing household duties is in need, the Minister may award a weekly pension to that person as long as he is employing some other person to do her duties and is maintaining the woman concerned. The payment is not to be greater than the amount paid for the substitute. So


we have the position that if the wife is seriously disabled for a long time, if her husband engages a substitute and he is in need, he may get the wages of the substitute. We all know that if a mother is injured it throws a serious financial burden on any working-class family, even if her disablement lasts only a few weeks, let alone six months. If the husband can secure a housekeeper—there might be difficulty in that respect in these days —he is not likely to employ anyone unless he is definitely certain that he will receive the money to pay her. If he is unable to employ a substitute, then the family will be dependent on relatives and on friendly neighbours sharing the burden, or the eldest girl will be called in as the little mother, and her education and health will accordingly suffer; or if it is an older girl and she has to be taken away from business, then no allowances would be forthcoming for her loss of wages.
In my judgment the Minister should for this purpose have regarded unpaid household duties as gainful employment. After all, the wife does work, though it is not paid work, and her work is perhaps more important to the nation than that of the breadwinner, but the Minister has determined—and the responsibility is entirely his—that if the woman in the pursuit of her domestic duties is disabled, if the woman with a basket is bombed when out shopping, nothing whatever is to be paid on her account except in the case of the provision that I have already mentioned. It is a sound principle that no one, of whatever class, should be forced into a position of need because of an injury, and that unfair burdens should not be placed on families and friends, due to disablement. It is an injustice that the ordinary housewife should be so contemptuously treated. When the full implications of this part of the scheme are realised, Ministers and Government supporters will have a warm time in the constituencies from the womenfolk.
There are several other points to which I wish to call attention. I find that under Part III no allowance may be paid to a disabled man on account of his wife if she is under 40 and there are no dependent children, unless she is incapable of self-support. The legislation with regard to widows pensions acknowledges the fact that a woman who has been occupied in

domestic duties is at a disadvantage if suddenly thrown on the labour market. I think that this principle should apply here and that some allowance should be made in these cases. Surely if a husband is totally disabled, whatever the age of the wife, it is the bounden duty of the wife to look after her husband, and she ought to be free to do so. Then there are provisions under Part III which I can describe only as an oddity. Clause 14 says that if a man dies and has been supporting a parent, an allowance may be made to the parent, but not if he has left a wife or child, so that if a bachelor has been supporting his widowed mother she will have a pension, but if a married man has been the support of his mother she will get nothing. I should be extremely grateful if the Minister would give his reasons for this quite extraordinary discrimination.
Then as to children's allowances. If a man is receiving an allowance for a temporary injury he gets in addition 3s. a week for each child, but not for more than four children; but in the case of a totally disabled man, under Part III he would receive 5s. each for the first two children, 3s. 4d. each for the third and fourth child, but nothing for any other child. But if he receives 5s. a week for his wife, then he is allowed only for three children, 5s. for the first and 3s. 4d. for the second and third. That is the same principle as is embodied in recent legislation and which is so obvious in relation to soldiers' dependants' allowances, namely, the penalisation of large families. The Government have failed to recognise the elementary fact that all children need to be fed and clothed; they cannot live on air. This scheme should be annulled until the Government can ensure a flat rate for each child in a family. I say emphatically, as a mother, that it takes more than is allowed under this scheme to maintain a child; and some people have large families. I should like also to draw attention to the position of the unmarried mother who is earning her own livelihood, and who, if she is entitled to an affiliation allowance, will receive nothing for a child for whom she is in receipt of a grant or allowance. There are cases where a mother is mainly responsible for maintaining the child but receives a small contribution from the father. In such cases it will be the child who will suffer if nothing


is paid. I have no objection to the allowance paid by the father being taken into account, but, in my judgment, the regulation is too harsh. Why should there be this injustice to the unmarried mother, who may have faced up to her responsibilities, and may be an excellent mother?
Unlike Part II, which lays down definite scales of allowances, Part III leaves the amount of the pension to be paid largely at the discretion of the Minister, subject to certain maxima and limitations which are set out in the regulations. The maximum for total disability in the case of an employed man or civilian volunteer over 21 years of age is 32s. 6d., but for an employed woman of 21 or over it is only 22s. 6d. The maximum for women is far too low. It should be remembered that these scales supersede the workmen's compensation scales. A man in good employment is in no worse position under this Bill than he would have been under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, but a woman is far worse off. The Minister has full power in any case to grant less than the maximum. That being so, I see no justification for the fixing of a lower maximum for women than for men. We are dealing in this Bill with working women, many of whom are organised, and this point has already excited great resentment. I find that in this new regulation there is a seven days' waiting period before a person is entitled to draw any payment, whereas under the Workmen's Compensation Acts the waiting period is only three days, and even that period is paid for if the injury lasts for a month or more. I think that the procedure under this Bill ought to have been in harmony with existing legislation.
The scheme, in my opinion, is not comprehensive. There are large sections of the community excluded from its operations. No injury allowances are payable to children at school. No injury allowances or pensions are payable to young persons engaged in unpaid household or other duties; to non-occupied persons, such as those retired from industrial work; to those who are incapable of work, for physical or other reasons; or to that most important section, the old age pensioners. Middle-aged persons living on small pensions or meagre private incomes are also left out. Surely the young and the aged ought to be protected. A wider scheme is

essential. I feel it is of the greatest importance that medical care and treatment should, in all cases, be provided free of charge to the injured person. The scheme certainly gives wide powers to the Minister. There is no right of appeal against his decision, though he may, in certain cases, refer a case to a panel nominated by the Presidents of the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians. The right of appeal against the Minister's decision should be vested in the applicant.
There are many other reasons which could be submitted in support of the Motion for the annulment of this scheme. I have tried to deal with this intricate subject very briefly. I can assure the Minister that great feeling has been aroused as these regulations have become more widely known. I trust that he will withdraw the proposed scheme, and devise something more equitable and just, in order to meet the needs of the civil population.

4.18 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summeskill: I beg to second the Motion.
I am sorry that this House is not full this afternoon: I believe that is simply due to the fact that very few people have taken the trouble to read this scheme; but I am glad to see on the Front Bench many responsible Ministers. I particularly want to stress two points in this scheme. One is dealt with in Article 11, which has to do with "allowances in respect of children." Here we have another instance where injured workers, who ought to have the greatest sympathy from the Government, are penalised because they have dared to produce three or four or more children. The allowances in respect of children of civilian workers who are injured in air raids certainly compare favourably with those for the children of soldiers at the front. The civilian worker who is injured will get for his third child 3s. 4d. a week, whereas the soldier's wife will get only 2s. a week. Perhaps we should be thankful that the civilian worker is getting as much as that. But it is time that this House was told who it is that has advised the Government as to the fixing of these allowances. Who decides that the large family should be penalised? Who advances the most curious theory that children, after the third or the fourth child, should be fed


upon the scraps left over by the first children? Who is behind the Government and is so very ignorant of the lives of the workers that he does not know that, if there is meat left over from one joint, it is already planned for dinner the next day? I feel that behind all this is some heartless, unimaginative kind of robot creature who has no human contacts at all. I want the Government to tell the House just how they are advised, by what kind of committee, and what are the qualifications of the people who give this advice to the Government?
They also, I fear, have that curious old-fashioned notion that all children need less than adults. Time and again in the discussions on children's allowances it has been brought to the notice of the Government that it is quite impossible to keep a child on 1s. or 2s. a week, but the Government always propose that an adult should have more. The fact is that a boy of 12 needs much more food, both in quantity and quality, than a man of 50 in a sedentary occupation, and, unfortunately, the man of 50 in a sedentary occupation often eats much more than the boy of 12 to the detriment of his health. It is an absolute fact that an adolescent child ought have a much bigger allowance than an adult of 50. I make these remarks because it seems to me the Government are being advised by men who are scientifically out of date and are thinking in terms of nineteenth century medical science. In these days we have an entirely different approach to these matters, and I ask the Government, on the question of allowances to children of workers who have been injured in air raids, to revise the particular Article which deals with this matter.
I want to deal with only two points which my hon. Friend has mentioned. The other point is contained in Article 18, on page 14. If I say to the Government that the contents of this article are outrageous, I shall be making an understatement. It is so phrased and worded that, unless it is carefully examined, the full purport of it cannot be appreciated. My hon. Friend was absolutely right. When the married women and housewives of this country have this Article properly interpreted to them—to say that they will be shocked is again an under-statement—there will be a revolt. If the Article remains as it is, it will

mean in effect that, if we had an air raid to-morrow and married women throughout the country were mutilated in such a way that they could not carry on their work, these regulations would be such that a housewife could not obtain one penny of compensation for herself, whereas in the same household her daughters and her sons who were working, or her husband, would be compensated. A housewife may be blinded or left without a limb and yet the Government are not going to give her one penny in compensation for herself. This may seem surprising to many people, but the answer of the Government that I know the Minister is going to give me later on, is that, in law, she is not gainfully employed. In cooking, scrubbing, washing and doing the whole of the work of the household, she is not in fact earning her livelihood, and, therefore, she is not eligible for any compensation at all.
This gives me an opportunity of raising a matter to which I have called attention in this House before, and which I remember even the Prime Minister once treated with hilarity. I remember asking the Prime Minister a question in this House showing that in the household where she is not getting a fair share of the family income, and where she feels that she cannot feed her children properly, the wife should have the right to know what her husband earns in order that she could establish a legal right to a share of the family income. The Prime Minister treated the matter with the utmost flippancy and the House roared with laughter.

Viscountess Astor: Because they all agreed with him.

Dr. Summerskill: It is not often that I agree with the Noble Lady, but I thoroughly agree with her on this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mrs. Adamson) called the housewives the great army of the unpaid because the principle that a married woman earns her living has not been established. The principle is exactly the same, whether the family income is £2, £10 or £20 a week. I am not suggesting for a moment that the housewife should be given all the money and be able to do as she likes with it. It the principle were established, the family income would be used in exactly the same way on rent, clothes and food. The time must come—I believe it


will come in my lifetime—when this House will listen without laughter and the principle will be established that the married woman is earning her livelihood and is making a useful contribution to society inside her home, and is in fact helping to earn the worker's wage just as much as he is outside the home.

Viscountess Astor: The hon. Lady must also realise that the married woman is in such a position to-day that the husband may die and not leave her a penny, and she can do nothing about it.

Dr. Summerskill: I agree with the Noble Lady, and I am also interested in the position when the husband is alive as well as when he is dead.

Mr. George Griffiths: He is not much good when he is dead.

Viscountess Astor: He is not if he leaves no money.

Dr. Summerskill: A scheme of this kind, which is really nineteenth century in its attitude towards this question, could not be drawn up by the Government and their advisers if the principle is established that the married woman is engaged in gainful occupation as a wife because she is doing work in the household. I have raised this matter on many occasions in relation to National Health Insurance. Why is the married woman to-day entirely neglected as far as health is concerned? Because, the Government will answer, she is not gainfully employed. If it were established that the woman was, in fact, earning her living, this Article would be void because the housewife would be regarded as being engaged in gainful occupation.
Let me give some examples of what will happen if this Article remains as it is. If a poor housewife has her arm and leg amputated in a raid, which is a likely possibility, and if the house is not in need; if a daughter or a friend can come in and do the work, there will be no grant of aid to that household The housewife must sit in the corner, having lost her independence, feeling that she is a drag on the household and knowing that not only can she do nothing but that there is no grant made to the household out of which somebody else can be paid. If the husband is extremely poor he is subject to a means test, and if he is subject to a means test and it is decided that

he may have a paid helper, the situation is rather an undignified one for the housewife, particularly, perhaps, in some homes where there may be a little friction. The husband can choose the helper, and also he is given the money with which to pay the helper, while the housewife who has been injured must sit in the corner, without one penny compensation and without even the dignity of knowing that she can at least choose and pay the helper.
If the marriage is an unhappy one, hon. Members can imagine the position of the injured woman. She is entirely dependent. She cannot say: "I will leave this and go out to work." She is so disabled that nobody will employ her. She cannot dismiss the woman helper in an unhappy household. She has to sit there and tolerate the conditions. I would ask the Minister to think carefully over this matter. I do not suppose that any threat from me will make any difference, but I shall ventilate this matter throughout the country to the best of my ability. The whole thing is absolutely inequitable. It means that the woman, because she is a housewife, is singled out from all insured workers because her work is not recognised as having a monetary value. Finally, however mutilated she may be, however much she is injured, whatever the income of the family may be, that woman cannot claim one penny compensation.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I hope that it will not be thought an unwarrantable intrusion if a male Member of the House says a few words. If I may do so without presumption, I should like to congratulate the two hon. Ladies on having given us the opportunity of considering this personal injuries scheme. It may be remembered that some of us objected to some of the provisions of the Act under which this scheme has been made. In particular, we raised the question of an appeal tribunal when that Act was being passed. Unfortunately, the Act was passed through the House on 3rd September, a day when we were mostly preoccupied with other matters, and it was difficult for the House to give that attention to the matter which it deserved. If we had been able to study it more closely, I do not think it would have been possible for the Minister to have produced a scheme of this kind.
This document relating to the scheme bears a strange resemblance to the Royal Warrant which we discussed a week ago, and I want to make it clear that we who sit in this part of the House regard that Royal Warrant as a mean and discreditable document, and we hold the same opinion of this Order. I do not propose to follow quite in the footsteps of the two hon. Ladies, but I entirely agree with them in the plea they have made for the domestic worker, the housewife, because I am unable to see by what principle of logic the Government draw a dividing line between the woman who has a housekeeper and the woman who is not able to keep a housekeeper, and who may be injured in the same way. With regard to the children's allowances it has been pointed out that there are two sets of allowances in this Order. In the first place, the allowance payable where the parent, the father or the mother, has sustained a temporary injury, the scale is 3s. per child, but not more than 12s. is payable in all, so that there is a limitation of allowance to four children. The question of limiting the number of children in respect of whom allowance is payable was dealt with very fully by a great many speakers last week, and I think the Minister will remember that, apart from himself and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, not a single speaker was found in any part of the House to offer a defence of that provision.
Under this scheme in case of temporary injury the allowance is to be 3s. per child. I wonder how that figure was arrived at? This question of children's allowances is not new. After many years of controversy, in the last Parliament and in this Parliament a scale of allowances was drawn up by the Unemployment Assistance Board. In that case the scale begins at 3s. for the youngest child and it goes up progressively according to the age of the child. How is it that a much meaner standard has been adopted by the Ministry of Pensions? Reference has been made to the children of pensioners, those who are drawing permanent pensions under the scheme. It has been pointed out that here again, as under the Royal Warrant, there is no provision for any child, after the third child, where the man is living with the wife and no provision for any child after the fourth child where the man is a widower or the wife is away.
It is unnecessary to recall all that was said last week on this subject. The House will remember the very moving appeal made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) in a speech which commended itself to hon. Members on this side as much as to hon. Members on his own side. It seems to me that all the arguments the right hon. Gentleman adduced then are equally applicable to the arrangements under this document. There is one further matter in regard to children that I do not think has been mentioned yet, and that is the case of the allowance to orphans. That is dealt with on page 13 of the Order. In paragraph 15 provision is made for pensions to the orphan brothers or sisters of someone who has been killed in an air raid or in similar circumstances, and it is provided that in these circumstances:
the Minister may, after taking into consideration the financial resources of the brother or sister, award him or her, as the case may be, a pension under this Article at such a weekly rate (not exceeding five shillings) as may appear to him to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
There are two provisos, the second one of which provides that:
pensions shall not be awarded under this Article in respect of the same death and at the same time at weekly rates exceeding in the aggregate the rate of ten shillings.
That is a singularly badly drafted provision. One wonders what kind of draftsmen are employed by the Ministry of Pensions, because it is difficult to understand what is meant by the term "at the same time." I think the intention of the paragraph is tolerably clear, and that is that at no time is more than 10s. to be paid in respect of the same death. Suppose there are three dependent orphans who were supported by the relative who has been killed, only 10s. is to be payable in respect of the three of them. Even if there are four or five, the total amount that can be paid under this proviso is 10s. It may be only a matter of 2s. or less per head per week. It will be interesting to hear whether the Minister will attempt any justification of these figures.
Let me make one observation with regard to injury allowances. It is not going to be too easy in the case where the injured person is the wife to get children's allowances at all. On page 7, paragraph 8, provision is made for the payment of 3s. in respect of a dependent


child of an injured person, but then it is provided in sub-paragraph (5):
Where a woman becomes entitled to be awarded an injury allowance, the rate of that allowance shall not be increased in respect of a, dependent child of hers…unless the Minister is satisfied that one of the following conditions is fulfilled.
Three conditions are set out. One is that she is a widow; the second is, that she is unmarried, and then the third condition, to which I want to draw attention—
that her husband is permanently incapable of self-support.
Take the case of a lawfully married woman with a dependent child. She is injured in her capacity as an air raid warden or some other civil duty. She becomes entitled to injury allowance under this scheme. Her husband, although he may be incapacitated for a time—he may be ill or has received some injury—is not permanently incapable of self-support. In that case under this scheme the wife is going to lose the allowance for the dependent child. Again I ask the Minister what justification he can bring forward for a provision of that kind? It is true that in a later part of the scheme the corresponding provision is slightly relaxed, to the effect that the allowance shall not be payable unless the husband is suffering from some prolonged injury which will make it unlikely that he will be able to support himself for a long time. I do not know why there should be this difference as between one part of the scheme and another, but, in either case, it is difficult to see how the provision can be justified.
I want to compare the provisions of this scheme with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. We are dealing here with persons who will be injured in the service of the State, and, therefore, the comparison is a fair one. If hon. Members will look at the allowances set out in paragraph 7 they will see the comparison which may be made with the Workmen's Compensation Act. Paragraph 7 begins by saying
injury allowances shall be payable only in respect of periods of seven consecutive days.
That means that it may not be paid in respect of any period of less than a week. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act the period is three days. It is only a small matter, but it may affect quite a

large number of people. Is there any reason why this arrangement should be meaner than the arrangement made under the Workmen's Compensation Act? I come next to the scale of allowances on page 8. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act a workman who is wholly incapacitated receives 50 per cent. of his average weekly earnings provided that the whole amount does not exceed 30s. That is to say, if he is earning a reasonable wage he may expect to receive 30s. per week under the Workmen's Compensation Act. But under this scheme if he is wholly incapacitated as an air-raid warden or observer, or in some other civil capacity, provided he is not a married man, he will receive, not 30s. per week but 18s. per week. Again, it will be interesting to know how the Minister of Pensions justifies this disparity. But the difference becomes even greater if you take the case of a young man or woman under 21. The words which follow the scale say:
In the case of unmarried persons who have not attained the age of 21 years the scales of payments shall be half the above rates.
If he is a young man of 20 who has been accustomed to earning his own living, he will be entitled to full compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but he is to get 9s. under this scheme and the girl 8s. a week. It is rather interesting to recall that when we were discussing the Bill under which this scheme is drawn there was a good deal of argument as to whether a man should lose his workmen's compensation rights. There is a provision which says that if a man is able to recover under this scheme he is to have no rights at common law or under the Workmen's Compensation Act. There was a long argument, and the Minister of Pensions said what a good arrangement it was and how a man would be no worse off by accepting this scheme. I am not arguing that point to-day, because the cases I have given, and there are bound to be many similar cases, show that people will be definitely worse off than if they are under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Perhaps we shall have some explanation as to why a man who is injured in the service of the State should be treated less generously than a man who is injured in the service of his employer. Now I want to draw the attention of the House to paragraph 9


which deals with double payments, It says:
Where such a person is in receipt of a pension or allowance payable wholly or partly out of public funds in respect of the death of any person a pension may be awarded him under this article at a rate not exceeding the following rate.
Then there is a provision which says that these pensions shall be scaled down. If he is receiving a pension in respect of the death of somebody, then the amount which he is to receive under this warrant is to be less than the full rate. Let me visualise the sort of case which may arise. Suppose you have the case of a war widow or a widow who is drawing a widow's pension. She receives some injury in the course of her Civil Defence duties. The amount she is to get under this scheme is to be scaled down because she is drawing a war widow's pension or a widow's pension. I cannot conceive what logic or justice there is in that. The war widow's pension was given to her as compensation for what she lost in the last war and the widow's pension is given in consideration of the contributions which have been paid by her husband, and yet these things are to be taken into account in order to cut down the none too generous scale of pensions under this scheme.
Finally, on the question of machinery, I hope the Minister will deal with paragraph 12 where it is a question of giving compensation to the widow or children because of death
as the direct result of a qualifying injury.
I am rather unhappy about the words "direct result," which I think are narrower even than the words that have been used in the past. It may very well happen that there will be a case where the war injury is not the only cause of a man's death. The man may have had some chronic weakness, or some tendency to disease, before his war service, which may have been aggravated and accentuated by his war service. In such circumstances, under the Royal Warrant applying to the last war, some provision could be made and it had not to be shown in every case that the man's death was a direct result of war injury, if it could be shown that it was partially so or that his condition had been aggravated by war injury. There is no provision of that sort in this scheme. On page 16, there is what

I regard as a very dangerous form of words. It deals with the machinery for making awards, and reads as follows:
The Minister may at any time review any award made by him under this Scheme, and, if it appears to him that by reason of any mistake of fact, any change in the condition or circumstances of the person to whom the award was made, or for any other reason whatsoever, it is expedient so to do, he may increase or reduce the rate of any pension or allowance…
I think we should all be willing to take a chance on the increases if we could get rid of the prospect of reductions. This is what may happen. A man may have a claim for a pension, and all the conditions set out in the document may be satisfied, and yet he may still be deprived of his pension, the widow or children may still be deprived of their rights under the document, because of some reason in the mind of the Minister, or some rule which Parliament has never seen and has never had a chance of approving or disapproving. It seems to me to be thoroughly bad that in this matter —this does not apply throughout the document—-we should leave this entirely unfettered discretion to the Minister to disqualify a man on any grounds that may seem fit to him. I look forward with some interest to the speech which the Minister of Pensions is to make, because I have a very clear recollection of the speech which he made a week ago. I think it is fair to say that on that occasion he did not attempt to answer the principal criticisms that were brought against the Royal Warrant. He made a very interesting speech, he told us how sympathetic he personally was to men injured in the course of their military duties, and he assured us that what mattered was sympathetic administration. He referred also to the reply given by the Prime Minister a few days before to the effect that if the scheme was shown to work unreasonably in any minor respect it might perhaps be modified.
After I had heard that, I went home, and that night I had a dream. I dreamed I was back 2,000 years in history at the court of King Herod. There I found, to my surprise, that the Minister of Pensions, then as now, occupied a high ministerial position. I dreamed that when King Herod, alarmed by the prophecies he had heard, issued his famous decree for the massacre of the young children, the Minister of Pen-


sions had the somewhat difficult task of carrying it out. Then, as now, the Minister was much criticised by factious Members of the Opposition and others, but he defended himself vigorously, and explained that he himself had always been very fond of children, and that the massacre would, he assured them, be administered as sympathetically as possible. When the critics pressed their criticisms a little further, the Minister referred them to an answer given by King Herod only a week before, in which he said that modifications might be considered if the Measure was found in any minor respect to occasion any undue hardship.

4.55 p.m.

Sir Francis Fremantle: I do not want to stand between my Noble Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) and the House, but I would like to support my sex in order to level up the Debate. I do not want to go into the details of the scheme, but it seems to me that hon. Members have forgotten the main lines on which this very great advance is being made. So far, hon. Members have criticised the scheme as though the Government were bound to supply the needs for a healthy living in all cases where people are injured or suffer as a result of the war. If that were the case, I should agree with most of the speeches that have been made, for obviously, if that were the case, the provisions that are made would be quite insufficient; but let us consider the matter from another point of view, namely, the necessity—which is agreed by every hon. Member—of limiting the enormous expenditure to which we are committed as a result of this emergency. The point is that this scheme makes provision which, I believe, has never before been made on any such comprehensive basis. Is it conceivable that in the great and appalling sufferings in Spain any provision should have been made for civilians who suffered? I think also of Poland and Czecho-Slovakia. Never before has provision been made in such a comprehensive scheme to include the sufferings of the whole country, which might be raided.
We are constantly asking the Government to keep down expenditure, and we say that we do not know how we shall be able to meet the expenditure; yet hon. Members make different proposals to in-

crease that expenditure, without having any regard to what the total amount would be. If it were only a question of a few thousand pounds, or one or two million pounds, I should agree with the criticisms that have been made, but I believe that, if the Government were to meet these criticisms, it might involve a cost of tens of millions of pounds. Therefore, what we have to do is to consider how much the Government can do and whether they have got the proportions right.
The hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill), with whom I do not always agree, made a speech with most of the points of which I agree, subject to the proviso which I have already mentioned; but the hon. Lady was wrong when she said that the Government are being advised by out-of-date medical advisers. She was wrong from two points of view. With regard to medical advice, she ought to know, as I think the House knows, that the Medical Research Council is as up to date, as comprehensive, as deeply responsible for up-to-date scientific work, as anybody could be. If the hon. Lady has any alternative to suggest and will forward it to the Government, I am certain they will consider it.

Dr. Summerskill: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not suggest that the Medical Research Council spend their time advising the Government what the advances should be? I did not attack the Medical Research Council in any way.

Sir F. Fremantle: The hon. Lady did not know who was advising the Government on medical matters, and she made a general statement attacking—

Dr. Summerskill: No.

Sir F. Fremantle: In any case, that is a minor point. There is one thing which I want strongly to endorse in the criticisms which have been made regarding the proportions in this scheme, and that is the limitation of the number of children for whom allowance is to be made. I cannot conceive on what principle that is done, and I cannot think of any reason except that not one of the advisers of the Government can have had as many as three children. I believe that must be the state of those who draw up these rules. This is a most serious matter, and it arises again and again every time the Government have anything to do with


the recruitment of the nation. I am not dealing with the matter from the point of view of morals, for they do not come into it. The Government are doing everything they can to discourage the recruitment of the nation. On two or three occasions, Lord Baldwin has referred to the grisly spectre which everyone sees behind the whole future of the nation. From every point of view, that peril is before us.
Again and again, where the Government have any chance of dealing with these matters, we find the same thing. Here they are, blessing the unmarried mother as though she were the equal of the wife. I do not say that there is not a case for dealing separately with the unmarried mothers. But the Government act without any suggestion that marriage is the basis of the structure of this country. We must keep that institution intact and sacrosanct, whatever point of view we may take, having regard to the future of the nation. The Government do nothing in order to support that principle and I do not think I have heard much from Members of the Opposition in support of it. Wherever we see that principle attacked, we ought to defend it, and when we see the fourth and fifth children practically treated as if they were dirt, and when we know that the bearers of some of the greatest names in our history have been fourth and fifth children then I feel we ought to protest in the strongest words that we can use.

5.2 p.m.

Major Milner: One is glad to know that the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) is in general agreement, at any rate, with those who have very usefully raised this Debate. He agrees that the provision made in this scheme for the fourth and additional children is inadequate and ought to be increased, and I hope we shall hear from the Minister of Pensions that the Government intend to provide for every child, both under this scheme and under the Royal Warrant. But I was interested to note that the hon. Member for St. Albans seemed to put the financial aspect before the human aspect. He spoke of waste as if there was waste in making adequate provision for those who are injured in air raids. In these days we are often told that the whole population is in the front line, just as

much as the soldiers in the trenches. Surely then it is as necessary to make provision for those on the home front as for those on the fronts in France and elsewhere. That is particularly so, when we remember that the Government have already accepted, in principle and subject to a saving clause, responsibility for 100 per cent. of damage done to property in accordance with the recommendations of the Weir Committee. If the Government can undertake such a liability in respect of property, is it not reasonable that they should also accept full responsibility in respect of a man and all his dependent relatives in cases of personal injury due to war?
A number of questions have already been raised, and I do not propose to cover the same ground again, but it seems to me that this scheme, like the Royal Warrant, is a typical product of the Ministry of Pensions. Like the Royal Warrant it has been designed after an experience of 20 years, with a view, apparently, of putting every obstacle, restriction and difficulty in the way of any man, woman or child who suffers injury as a result of the war. We know the present Minister of Pensions to be personally sympathetic, and I had hoped that when he became Minister he would himself go through the Royal Warrant and this scheme and cut out some of the restrictions, conditions and objections which are placed in the way of applicants by both documents. In almost every paragraph of this scheme one finds some restriction or else some condition precedent which has to be fulfilled before a successful claim can be made. In every direction the ordinary straightforward case is beset with difficulties. There is a restriction in point of time. We find, for instance, in paragraph 7 that allowances are to be payable only in respect of periods of seven consecutive days, and that no payment is to be made in respect of any period not falling within six months, beginning with the date of the receipt of injury. That, presumably, means that no payment will be made for the first seven days during which a person suffers and that there will be no payment after this period of six months. Why six months? Why any limitation at all? Is not the person who is incapacitated entitled to compensation during the whole period of incapacity? In paragraph 10 of the scheme we find that where a pen-


sion is awarded to a married man, there may also be awarded a weekly allowance in respect of his wife. This is to be of an amount
not exceeding the sum which bears to the sum of five shillings the same proportion as the degree of disablement by reference to which his pension was assessed bears to 100 per cent.
Apparently, if a man has a 50 per cent. disability he may be granted an additional half-crown in respect of his wife, and the maximum allowance in respect of a wife is only 5s. I do not propose to deal again with the question of dependent children in excess of three, further than to say that I can only imagine such a decision as this being made on the basis that someone in the Ministry thinks of this matter in the terms of some form of mass production and imagines that costs are proportionately reduced the larger the number of children. We all know that that is not so and that four children cost more than three and five children cost more than four. There is no justification for this ridiculous limitation. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) has referred to the condition that a pension can only be awarded to a widow in cases where the husband has died as the direct result of a qualifying injury. I prophesy that in years to come Members of Parliament will get letters from the Minister or his successors expressing regret that pensions cannot be awarded under the terms of the scheme in particular cases because the injury from which a man died was not a direct result of a qualifying injury—just as we receive scores of letters of that kind in similar cases under the former Royal Warrant. That condition will be used, not to help a widow to get a pension, but to prevent her getting one.
Then, in paragraph 14, it is provided that a pension is only to be granted to the parents of a deceased person, if the deceased person had been regularly contributing to the support of that parent during the year immediately preceding his death. There is also to be a means test. The financial resources of the parent are to be taken into consideration. The pension is not to exceed 10s. and where there are two parents is not to exceed 12s. 6d. If I should, unfortunately, be killed and if I have been in the habit of contributing to the support of one parent, that one parent may, with the Minister's kind permission—because he is the authority here, and there is no court of appeal

—be awarded 10s. If I have been in the habit of contributing to the support of both father and mother, however, the total amount which they can receive is only 12s. 6d.—an additional half-crown in respect of the second parent. What justification can there be for that?
Take the case of a pension to a brother or sister of a deceased person. That brother or sister may be wholly in need, and yet the maximum weekly amount which can be paid is 5s.; and there again you are left entirely in the hands of the Minister to grant what sum may appear to him to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Later in the document further conditions are laid down. In paragraph 26, on page 17, it states that the application for an award must be made within three months from the date on which the injury was received or, if the injury necessitated immediate treatment in hospital, within three months from the date of the first discharge from the hospital. Why should there be any limitation at all, if an injury is in fact received, under the terms of the scheme; why should there be three months or any other limit? Here again is a paragraph which states that no award may be made under the scheme in respect of the death of any person who died as the result of an injury sustained by him more than seven years before the date of his death. The loss to the relatives or the dependants is just the same if it was six months, a year, or seven years from the date of the injury, and what particular virtue is there in seven years under this scheme any more than under the Royal Warrant?
In my view, and, I believe, in the view of all impartial Members of the House, this is a disgraceful piece of legislation which is being passed through this House hastily and without thought. There is no provision here for any appeal, just as there is no provision for any appeal under the Royal Warrant. The unfortunate applicant under the Royal Warrant and under this scheme is entirely in the hands of the Minister, and I am bound to say, quite frankly, that although I have a great deal of confidence in the Minister, I have not that confidence in the Ministry of Pensions having seen its operations over the last 20 years to believe that that Ministry ought to be left to administer either this scheme or the Royal Warrant without having some independent tribunal


to which an injured person can appeal. If we had such an independent tribunal, I should be a good deal more reconciled to the scheme than I am.
There is a further point. I am told that instructions have been issued to certain civilian workers and volunteers, and that those instructions have hitherto resulted, in London, at any rate—in the cases which have been brought to my notice, which are cases of those engaged on auxiliary fire services—in the applicants being sent to the Unemployment Assistance Board. I have not appreciated from the scheme where a man or a woman ought to apply, whether to a post office, or to the Board, or to any other body. At present it appears to be clear that applicants or those injured are being sent, in London, at any rate, to the Unemployment Assistance Board, and that actually instructions have been issued by some of the councils, no doubt on Home Office advice or instruction, to applicants to go to the Board. There is one case of a fireman who was injured and who had to make six journeys to the Board, and he was sent to an Employment Exchange and to a number of offices before he got any satisfaction. Surely it is not necessary that these applicants should be sent to the Unemployment Assistance Board; surely they could draw through a post office or some other Government Department. Obviously many men do not care to go to the Board, and hesitate to do so if they are injured, because probably they return to work before they are fit; and, of course, the Board offices are frequently some distance from the home of an applicant, and travelling expenses have to be incurred.
From the cases, which I will not quote in detail, which I have in my hand, cases of the auxiliary fire service, it is clear that the procedure is not generally known, and I hope the Minister of Pensions or the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will see that full instructions and particulars are issued to all civilian volunteers and to the public generally as to the persons to whom they should apply for pensions or compensation under this scheme. I hope those Members of the House who have taken the trouble to read this very difficult and ill-drawn document, hedged in and fenced round in every

direction as it is, will take steps to put pressure on the Government and to bring public opinion to bear on the iniquitous provisions of the scheme. I do not believe that the people of this country would be willing to submit to a scheme of this sort, if they knew the full facts and appreciated what might be the consequences, any more than they would submit or agree to the scheme of the Royal Warrant which was criticised so severely the other day.

5.17 p.m.

Viscountess Astor: I do not agree with the last speaker in regard to the Ministry of Pensions. It is one of the most extraordinary things that I have watched since 1919. I have watched Ministers of Pension from that side and from this side, and the remarkable thing about it is that we have never had any political bias in this matter. I happened to be born in a country where this became a political question, and the State had to pay pensions to men who had not even heard of the Civil War. Their pension scheme was one of the great scandals of the day, so I want to pay every respect to the Ministry of Pensions in this country. I think they have done very well indeed. Everyone knows how difficult it is. I do not think anything is more difficult than to get the right rewards for the right men, and there have been some very unfortunate cases, but on the whole I think the Ministry deserve well of the country. I wish more Members had been on our Front Bench and that more Members of the House as a whole had heard the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of this Prayer, because they went fully into the matter and made convincing speeches. I wish they had heard the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), who said he had had a dream. I, too, have had a dream. I dreamed that I woke up 25 years from now, and I was in the House of Commons. There were 600 women Members and 15 men Members, and there was not a single man on the Front Government Bench. There was one Under-Secretary tucked away in a corner, but nobody else and the 15 men were pleading with the Prime Minister of that day to do justice to the married men. They said, "There was a time when we did not treat you fairly, but we implore you to treat us fairly." It was really very interesting.

Mr. Tomlinson: A nightmare.

Viscountess Astor: No, it was not a nightmare, but it all seemed to me just as unfair, and just as ridiculous, then as it does now. This great mass of women in the House would go out and appeal to the men for justice and so on and to put them into Parliament because they wanted to do what was right for the country. The extraordinary position of the married women under this Order was stressed by the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill). I cannot understand why they should be so completely ignored. I am not going into it now, because the House does not want long speeches and long sittings, but one could go on all night telling about the injustices to the married woman. I am convinced that sooner or later she will be considered a person as important to the community as the married man.
Another point that was raised was with regard to large families. I have heard Ministers making appeals in which they said how the future of England depended on the children—on families of three children, but never on families of six. They all deal with families of three children when making their appeals. These orders are drawn up by civil servants who never have more than two children if they can help it. It may be said that they cannot afford to have more, but that is a poor excuse. If my parents had said they could not afford it I should not be here now. Most parents of large families do not consider whether they can afford it—they go on having children. It is extraordinary that provision is always made in such orders as this for three children, and after that number there is no provision at all. I hope the Minister will explain that anomaly. Only last week some of us were getting at the Minister, not for ignoring the married woman, but for making too much of the unmarried mother. Now we are pleading with him to put the married mother in a better position than this order puts her.
After the Government said they were going to give compensation for property, they had naturally to say that they would do it for human beings. I hope that after the speeches to-night they will give fair treatment to the wife, for otherwise she will be in an appalling position under this order. The picture which the hon. Member for West Fulham drew of the injured wife was a horrible one. It may be said

that it will not happen very often, but it ought never to happen at all. I do not believe the Minister was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He knows what he is talking about when he speaks about working women. I know that he wants to do the best he can for them, and I hope that he will take up the three points that have been made by women Members in this Debate.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Mrs. Adamson) on raising this question. When the Bill on which this Order is based was before the House, the Minister assured us that he would see that the scheme was a very generous one. I do not think that anyone looking at the Order can say that the scheme is very generous. I would ask the Minister of Pensions to go over the speeches in this Debate very carefully. The analysis that was made by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) showed up many of the weaknesses of the scheme. I want to make a protest about the treatment of women as compared with that of men under the scheme. The Second Schedule provides that if the degree of disablement is 100 per cent. a man receives 32s. 6d. and the woman 22s. 6d. The time has gone for making these distinctions between men and women that work adversely to the interests of women. I am a bachelor and I cannot see why the bachelor should be treated more favourably than the spinster with regard to these allowances. I would also like to draw attention to paragraph 29, on page 18, which lays down provisions as to awards in respect of wives and widows. Sub-section (1) carries out what happened under the pension scheme of the last war for widows of soldiers and sailors. It states:
No award to the widow, or in respect of the wife, of a person may be made in a case where the widow or wife had married the person after he received the qualifying injury in respect of which the application for the award is made.
Hon. Members will have had the same experience as I have had of cases of ex-soldiers in the last war who married after they had been wounded. Possibly a man went back into service after he had been wounded, and when he came home he got married, possibly to a young woman with whom he had been keeping company for a long time. After the man returned to


civilian life his wound rendered him unfit for work. When it was sought to get a pension for his wife, she could not get it because the marriage had taken place after he had received the wound which was responsible for his disability. Experience showed that this provision worked most unfairly. I wonder what the people who made it were thinking about. Was it their idea that if a man was wounded he should not get married afterwards and that if he did he would do so at his own risk so far as the effects of the wound were concerned? I should not be surprised if the present Minister of Pensions had taken cases such as this to his predecessors in office and had felt wrath at the way in which wives and men who had been married after the men had been wounded were being treated with reference to pensions. It is quite wrong that that provision should be included, and the Minister of Pensions would be acting very wisely if he got rid of it altogether.
I am also amazed at the attitude of this Government in favouring apparently small families. At one time there was a great appeal to parents to have larger families; much excitement over the declining population, and figures given showing that, if the present state of affairs continued, by 1950 the population would have fallen to something like 30,000,000. Then the Government come forward with an Order like this, in which they seem to be looking forward to a big decrease in the population, because they refuse to make provision for larger families. If the Government are of that opinion they would be better advised to make it a criminal matter for parents to have more than three in the family, rather than to subject the child to hardship by making no provision for it in the case of the parent being injured in this way. I think the Minister would be acting wisely if he told the House that he was seized of the difficulties in connection with his scheme and was prepared to bring forward a new one. The tendency of recent years has been to do these things by Order rather than by Statute. I am convinced that if this had been a Bill instead of an Order the pressure exerted by Members would have been sufficient to secure the acceptance of a number of Amendments alleviating the position. We cannot do that in the case of an Order, however, and I think the

Minister ought, in view of the criticisms from all sides of the House, to bring in a new Order.

Sir Patrick Hannon: The hon. Member has been speaking about the Government desiring to limit families, but I would point out that some little consideration is, in fact, being extended to the fourth child.

Viscountess Astor: But nearly everybody in the West country has six children.

Mr. Stephen: I know there is a sort of qualification in the case of the fourth child, that if there are four in the family and there are special circumstances we may make extra provision for the fourth. In the family to which I belong there were six children, and it was quite a good family, and I do not think anyone is acting wrongly in having a family of six instead of three or four. It is absolutely wrong for the Government to act as they are doing. The need of the child ought to be the chief consideration. But, in fact, the background to this Order is the financial position. In any decent country the first consideration ought to be the children, and there ought to be no subterfuges such as are found in this Order, trying by backdoor methods to clamp down families. I am also very much in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds in drawing attention to the difficulties that will arise from the adjective "direct" as applied to the disability from which the soldier is suffering. I am sure that the Minister, from his experience of cases arising out of the last War, will see the possibilities of difficulties occurring, and I hope that when he makes his new Order, which I am assuming he will make, he will get rid of the adjective "direct," and that if the injury is the cause in any way of the poverty that is threatening the household he will see that proper provision is made for those affected. Again I would thank the hon. Member who raised this matter, and again I express the hope that the Minister will pay attention to the criticisms put forward in the House.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Amery: I think the two hon. Ladies who raised this Debate have done well to draw attention to the unsatisfactory position in which this Order


leaves the married woman. I quite realise that some attempt is made to meet her case where an actual substitute to do her work is brought into the house, but I doubt whether that really meets the situation, or whether, on any general principle, it is a reasonable recognition of the position of the woman who is a partner with her husband in the enterprise of life. On what general principle are we dealing with this problem? As the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) did well to remind us, when it comes to property the view taken by the Government, and I think rightly, is that in circumstances which ordinary insurance cannot meet, and which arc due to national action, the accidental suffering of the individual should be compensated, so far as the national means allow, from the common purse. I should have thought that that principle ought to be applied, as far as possible, to personal injuries suffered by individuals, and that these should be measured, not merely by the amount of money they were earning at the time or merely take into account whether they were actually employed and earning money. I am not so much concerned, however, with that aspect of the question as with the extraordinary position in which children are left under this and the various other war Measures that are now before us. The hon. Member who spoke last did well to suggest that the Government should review the whole situation and ask themselves how much is required to keep a child, not only alive but in a condition to enable it to grow and become a fit citizen in the future. That is the only question that matters, but it seems to be the last question which was considered by the various individuals who have concocted the variety of scales under which children are to be maintained.
We have first the scale for the soldier's children. According to this scale, the first child is supposed to be adequately fed on 5s. a week, the second child on 3s. and the third child on 2s. Any other child which has the insolence to be born is to be kept down to is.—and serve it darned well right, too. That is 2d. a day, or less. In that same Measure, there is a pensions scheme by which no child after the fourth is supposed to have the right to exist. Then there is the evacuation scale which, even making allowance for the discomfort caused, is

quite disproportionate to the other, as it provides either 8s. 6d. or 6s. on taking a quantity. Now we have this Measure which includes a number of different scales. I have previously pointed out to the House how unjust the downward tapering scale is, in view of the fact that when you have a larger family you normally have a larger proportion of older children, who cost more to clothe, feed and all the rest of it. Whoever has devised the scale on page 7 of this document has realised that fact and, instead of having a tapering scale, thinks that 3s. is the right figure, and good enough, for all children up to the fourth, at which point children are not supposed to exist or, if they do, they must scrounge what they can off the allowances given to the others.
When we turn over a page or two we come to page 10, and there we find two scales in regard to other children, who still have the same human needs of life and growth. One scale begins at 5s. and goes down to 3s. 4d., refusing to admit the existence of any child after the third. The other scale also tapers down to 3s. 4d., but admits the existence of the fourth child while denying the right of any children to exist after the fourth. Later on, on page 12, we see that children who are with their mothers get 5s., and if not, 7s. 6d., but subject to a subsequent qualification the full meaning of which I have not been able to work out but which is, no doubt, intended to cut down that scale somewhat further. Surely each of these incongruous scales cannot be right. The needs of the ordinary human child are the same, whatever the circumstances that may have brought about its suffering and its dependence upon the nation. It is time that all these scales were recast, and that upon one principle only, namely, what is a reasonably sufficient allowance to meet the needs of health and growth of all children however many there may be in the family?
Those who have concocted these scales must, I fancy, belong either to households that have taken great care, as my noble Friend has said, not to have more than two children, or to those that are so wealthy that a few additional children in the day and night nursery do not make much difference; or else they genuinely believe that it is a crime to have more than three children. None of those classes of people ought to have a say in


settling these scales. We are concerned about the future of our nation. That is the one thing we ought to make sure of preserving at a time like this, when so much of the present, of the flower of the nation, may be sacrificed. If we can guarantee that future, we can make good whatever losses there may be in property, and even whatever losses in life we sustain during this time of sacrifice. The one thing which we cannot afford to sacrifice is the health and upbringing of our children. Once again, I would endorse the plea which has come from every quarter of the House that the whole business of children's allowances, and not only for those who may suffer directly from the war—for I would include the children of the unemployed and those who are on public assistance—should be reconsidered from one point of view, and one point of view only, the future needs of the nation.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Viant: The extraordinary thing about this Debate is its striking similarity to the Debate which took place last week. With one exception to-day this Government scheme has met with nothing but criticism and opposition. The only support has come from the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle)—[An HON. MEMBER: "As usual"]. I suggest to him that there is a gathering feeling throughout the country that the Government are anxious to run the war as cheaply as possible, in matters affecting the working people and the members of the Services. I would entreat the Government not at any time to allow that opinion to gain strength in the country. No one who listened to the Debate last week and that to-day could help feeling that even this House is convinced that the Government are not doing justice in respect of these allowances, more especially as they affect married women and the children.
I cannot persuade myself that the Minister of Pensions has given all the consideration that is necessary to the position of the mother in the home. An appeal was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mrs. Adamson), as well as by other hon. Members, that the Government should remember that the mother in the home is doing work and rendering service equally good and necessary with anyone taking part in Civil Defence. I

put it no higher than that, but if I were to express my own opinion in that regard I should say that the mother in the home is performing a function greater than any other function that can be rendered. We are at least entitled to ask the Government to give the mother in the home equal treatment with those who might be injured in following the pursuits of Civil Defence, and I hope that the Government will give this point especial consideration.
Let us take the position of the working class home. Suppose the mother is injured; the man is put in a very difficult position, no matter what woman he may get in to look after the home. She can in no sense of the word play the part of the mother. The least we can do is to see that the mother receives compensation equal to that given to other people who are injured in the performance of Civil Defence. Then we come to the question of children. I am waiting to hear a Minister for the Crown—we have not heard him yet—define the reasons why the third or fourth child can be kept cheaper than the first. The Government know that it is an utter impossibility. On the grounds of equity, why are we asked to pass these draft regulations when there are such inequities between the first, second, third and four children? Each child should receive the same allowance, and on no grounds are we justified in passing these draft regulations that permit such gross inequalities.
I desire to draw the attention of the Ministers present to the position that is operating to-day in respect of members of the Auxiliary Fire Service. In my own division the men who were recruited were given a form to sign which stated that in the event of death in following their occupation a sum of £1,000 compensation would be paid, in the event of certain injuries and disabilities a sum of £500, and in the event of total disability a pension of £3 per week would be paid to them. I am given to understand that not only did this happen in my own division, but that it has happened throughout the country. These men signed that contract. A week or so ago the following notice was exhibited at the headquarters of the Fire Brigade:
Will all members of the A.F.S. please note that the original insurance scheme which covered them against injury or death during peace time training periods is cancelled? Action on any claims in respect of


war service injuries incurred by members of the A.F.S. personnel on or since the 3rd September should be taken to the Unemployent Assistance Board. It should be noted that in the case of disablement arising from war service injury application for injury allowance should be made to the local office of the Unemployment Assistance Board.
The address of the office is given, and then the notice goes on to state that particulars will be furnished to the applicant
by the Unemployment Assistance Board or the Ministry of Pensions, together with the form of application for injury allowance or pension. Any injury or sickness to be reported to headquarters station, as must the fact of return to duty after sickness or accident of a member of the Auxiliary Fire Service.
Since that notice was displayed two or three members of the Auxiliary Fire Service have been sick. In the case of one man who was injured while at his station, he was referred to the Unemployment Assistance Board, who applied the means test, sending an inspector to his home and demanding to see his wife's marriage certificate. When he had returned to duty he received the sum of 33s. per week for the sick period. The Unemployment Assistance Board form for this case is in the hands of the Fire Brigade Union. Those who joined the Auxiliary Fire Service were given the schedule of insurance which told them they would get the benefits to which I have already referred. These men were in no way informed that their former contract was terminated. It is rather interesting, I presume, from the legal standpoint. The former conditions of contract should at least have been terminated and should have been replaced by these entirely new terms, but nothing of that kind has occurred. This is not going to help us in our recruiting for the Auxiliary Fire Service.
I am connected with a section of industries to whom appeals have been made for the purpose of organising demolition squads. These demolition squads, in every sense of the word, must be composed of skilled men—men with a knowledge of building construction and with sufficient knowledge to know exactly how to shore up a house or a building after a raid when damage has been done, in order that further damage and injury shall not result. If there were no volunteers for this demolition squad the local authority would be compelled to employ a local builder or contractor to shore up

those houses. In the event of injury the men engaged by that contractor would be able to avail themselves of the advantages of the Workmen's Compensation Act, but these conditions supersede the Workmen's Compensation Act, and I hope that this House will be fully seized of the ramifications of these proposals. If we are not prepared to compensate them somewhat in keeping with the compensation which they would receive under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the least that we can do is to provide something approximate to it and not put forward proposals such as are laid down in these regulations. It is unreasonable to ask skilled men to join a demolition squad, as it is equally unfair to ask men to join the Auxiliary Fire Service and to forego their rights under the Workmen's Compensation Act in return for the benefits that are offered in these proposals. I hope the Government will face up to this position and will appreciate the fact that these conditions are in no way good enough for the services that are being asked of these men who are prepared to render service in Civil Defence.
The whole scheme needs remodelling and redrafting, and the conditions that are offered should be made more in keeping with that to which these volunteers would be entitled under existing Acts of Parliament. This House should under no consideration be prepared to allow regulations of this kind to supersede the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is unfair. Furthermore, it is far too dangerous. Having raised those points, I hope the Minister will be able to reply and let me know the position of local authorities who have not terminated the old contract but simply posted up the notice that I have read out. Are they legally entitled to do that, and from whence is their power derived? I await a reply to these points.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: We have had an interesting Debate and most of the points that have been made have been made very clearly, particularly by the Mover and Seconder. I think, perhaps, some injustice has been done to the Minister in some of the speeches because he warned us of what was to come on 2nd September. I quote from his speech of that date:
A different position arises when dealing with war injuries which may only last a week or a fortnight. It might be something very


slight or something rather severe, and, if it is severe, the applicant is entitled to be dealt with under the pensions scheme. We have framed the scheme with regard to war injuries partly on war pensions rates, partly on workmen's compensation rates, and partly on the Ministry of Health insurance scheme rates. That may seem to be rather a muddle, but we have tried to frame the rates of pay along the lines of those in respect of injuries sustained in other connections.
So, if the scheme is a muddle, the hon. Gentleman warned us that it would be a muddle. He has seized on some of the principles which apply to all these different schemes and brought them together in this document without, as far as we can see, any coherence running through them at all. But I thought he was pulling our leg when he went on to say:
We feel that the Treasury should be as generous to those who are injured as they are in the provisions made under any other Act of Parliament, and I believe hon. Members will be satisfied with the rates which will appear in the scheme when it is laid before the House. I do not expect any difficulty about that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd September, 1939; cols. 265–6, Vol. 351.]
Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the rates of compensation under the scheme bear any relationship to those in any other Act of Parliament? They are lower than the Unemployment Assistance Board and they are lower than workmen's compensation. They are lower than all these other schemes. It is clear that in the tug-of-war that has occurred between the hon. Gentleman and the Treasury, the Treasury has again won and he has lost. It is time that Ministers ceased to be messenger boys bearing unpleasant messages to the House of Commons from the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman smiles but, obviously, if what he said on 2nd September was correct—if he believed what he said—then he must believe that these scales are generous. If they are not generous, it is because his anticipations have not been realised and he has succumbed to pressure from the Treasury. I think it is rather unfortunate that you have a Minister now in charge of this very important Department, very much swollen of recent years, who has no Cabinet rank. It is desirable that, if these matters are to be administered under one Department, the Minister in charge of them should have Cabinet rank. It is impossible to expect the hon. Gentleman to win a tug-of-war with the Treasury

when he is the head of a subordinate Ministry.
I sympathise very much with the point of view that was put by the Mover and Seconder with respect to wives. I cannot understand why there should be any difficulty about this, because in working-class households the wife is in a very real sense of the term a part earner of the husband's wages—not in law, but in fact. Indeed, one of the reasons why the marriage relationship in working-class families is more wholesome than in other classes of family is because it is based on the economic condition of labour. To suggest that in a miner's or steelworker's house the wife is not a part earner of the husband's income is regarded as nonsense, as the work could not be carried on. You only have to think of a collier's house, where men are working on different shifts, coming home all through the night and all through the day, where the whole economy of the house turns on the skill, industry and devotion of the housewife, to see that, if it were not for her participation in the work, the whole of industry would completely break down.
Therefore, it is a proper principle that the State should recognise the independent citizenship of the housewife as such, and she ought not to be a second-class citizen. She is made a second-class citizen because she is allowed only to live as a citizen through the husband. That has always been regarded as a fundamental principle of the party to which I do not for the moment belong, that every citizen in the State should possess full citizen rights, and it was one of the most deplorable features of society that the wife was made economically dependent on her husband, and it was a source of the emotional maladjustment of many homes. Hon. Members on these benches who follow manual occupations know that to be perfectly true. When I and my brothers worked in the pit and there were five of us working up till the time when we were 25, we did not handle any money. It went to our mother. That is normal in thousands of homes. It is an outrage to suggest that you should ignore the economic identity of the housewife in this way. A point has been made in defence of the wife. I should like to make a defence of the husband, too. It is not proper that, if the wife is injured, the domestic felicity of the household should be impaired by the knowledge on


the part of the husband that the wife has a legitimate grievance. That also gives rise to difficulties in the house. If you are going to have a decent scheme you must in it enfranchise the housewife, who is not enfranchised at present.
The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) touched upon a point which has not, perhaps, been given sufficient subsequent attention. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) said these rates varied in different classes, and even between different people in the same class. As a matter of fact, the House is discussing no rates at all. For the first time in any legislation, as far as I know, the rates of compensation are at the caprice of the Minister. I am really astonished that hon. Members on that side should tolerate this piece of legislation. If they will look at page 15 they will see that
any pension or allowance under Part III or Part IV of this scheme may be awarded provisionally or upon any other basis, and for such period and at such rate (not exceeding the appropriate rate specified in the relevant Article) as the Minister may think fit.
That is for the initial claim. Then, overleaf, it is provided:
The Minister may at any time review any award made by him under this scheme, and, if it appears to him—
not to the House of Commons or any judicial tribunal—
that by reason of any mistake of fact, any change in the condition or circumstances of the person to whom the award was made, or for any other reason whatsoever, it is expedient so to do, he may increase or reduce the rate of any pension or allowance awarded, cancel an award, or make a fresh award, so, however, that no pension or allowance shall be increased to a rate exceeding the appropriate rate specified in the Article under which it was awarded.
I believe that this is a point of very great constitutional importance. It goes, indeed, to the very root of the British Parliamentary system. I know of no Act of Parliament which makes the disbursal of public money subject to the caprice of a Minister. Even where the Minister is appealed to, it is usually in a judicial sense, as in the Transport Act. But here the Minister is disbursing public money. I am not suggesting that the Minister would be corrupt, but it is the duty of the House of Commons to protect a Minister from the importunity of citizens, and from the importunity of Members of

this House. Why should the Minister be in a position to award a sum of money to the constituents of one hon. Member and withhold it from the constituents of another? It may be that the Minister himself is an incorruptible person, but we have in the past protected ourselves from the possibility of corruption by protecting the Minister by putting him behind the judiciary, but here the Minister is fully exposed to all the pressure that can be brought upon him.
I suggest that if that power be in the hands of the Minister, every hon. Member to whose constituents the Minister has not awarded pensions will have a grievance against the Minister. It will not be a grievance against the Act any longer. The Minister will not be able to say, "The Act of Parliament does not permit me to do this." He cannot quote a Clause in an Act or a decision of a referee or umpire. It seems to me that we ought at all costs to insist upon this Order being amended, in order to protect the Minister from circumstances like that. There ought to be some means of appeal beyond the Minister that would settle the matter on the factual basis of the Order itself, and not on what might be the caprice of the particular Minister in power. I implore hon. Members in all parts of the House to stamp at once on this change in legislation, which might have the most serious consequences, not only on the control of the House over the expenditure of public money, but on the tradition of incorruptibility that we have so largely built up.
I come to a more general point. We had a discussion last week on soldiers' allowances; we have a discussion this week on pensions for civilians who are injured. Last week there was no defender of the Government to be found in any part of the House; to-night there has been the qualified support of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle). I submit that a very serious condition of affairs arises. There may be a Division after this Debate is over —I do not know; that may depend to some extent on what the Minister says in reply. How are we going to divide? Are we going to divide on normal party lines? Are the Whips to be on? Are we to have Divisions in which we, on this side, will be the permanent victims of the artificial majority on that side? [Interruption.] I say "artificial"


now, because there is no way of testing opinion in the country. The views of the electors are concealed from us. We have no constitutional expedient for testing them. There was elected, three or four years ago, on a policy which was directly opposite from the policy being followed now, a vast majority, which may or may not represent the views of the country.
In the country as a whole the circumstances of the war and the party truce are preventing the political parties from testing public opinion. That has, to a certain extent, disfranchised the electorate. If the electorate is disfranchised, we become the electorate; and we should be able to have divisions in this House the result of which will not involve the fate of the whole Administration. On these particular matters we ought to have a series of free votes, so that we on this side can collect support from that side of the House if it is forthcoming. Such support ought to be available without involving the ordinary consequences of party discipline, and we ought to be able to dismiss incompetent Ministers without bringing the fate of the whole Government into question. Only in that way can the House of Commons discharge its duties in war time; otherwise we are going to be the permanent victims of artificial political divisions. I am not in favour of the dispersal or immobilisation of parties, but I am against this party being the permanent victims of that majority on every issue.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I think I have already allowed the hon. Member to continue that subject too long.

Mr. Bevan: We are meeting in very unusual circumstances, and it is time that hon. Members faced up to the implications of their own decisions. They have not faced up to the fact. If we are to bring the executive under effective control and prevent this nonsense—because it is real nonsense—the Minister ought to be sacked for bringing such rubbish before the House, and his advisers should be dismissed if they are responsible. Everybody knows that there is not an hon. Member here who dare go to his own constituency and defend this incoherent rubbish. There is not an hon. Member in this House who would take the responsibility of defending it. Hon.

Members should face up to their responsibilities in the Division Lobby. We ought to be allowed to vote upon these things, which do not affect the fundamental issues of peace or war, but which affect the direction and conduct of the war and the morale of our people, in order that we may bring the whip of the House of Commons censure on incompetent Ministers who at the moment are appointed for party considerations.

6.22 p.m.

Sir P. Hannon: I do not propose to follow the eloquent discourse of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), which was in many respects very far removed from the subject before the House. As long as we have in this House Departmental legislation and Orders made under the powers conferred by Act of Parliament upon Ministers, we shall have Orders of this kind. It will be remembered that a short time ago a Noble Lord in another place wrote a very remarkable book in which he dealt with Departmental legislation in all its aspects. It was an exposition of many of the defects and anomalies by which Orders had conferred very great powers upon Ministers of this House.
The point I wish to make is that the Minister ought to give more attention to the question of encouraging larger families in this country. It is a great pity, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery) said, that we should limit these scales or awards in cases of accident to four members of the family. In this country for several years past continuous attention has been drawn to the limitation of families and the danger to the future vitality and strength of our people by small families. Everybody must have been struck by the statement made by the Noble Lady of the importance of a large family in maintaining a strong and wholesome outlook on domestic life. I hope that the Government will consider whether, in adjusting these scales of payment to be made either to soldiers, sailors or airmen, or to persons who sustain injuries in civil life due to air raids or otherwise, more consideration cannot be given to the allowances in respect of four, five, six or any number of children in the family.
Personally, I have great confidence in the Minister of Pensions. I think he is the ideal person in the position he stands as Minister. Of his human qualities every


Member of this House is aware, and if anybody can be entrusted to discharge his duties with all humane consideration, it is the Minister who now sits on the Front Bench dealing with pensions. I hope very much that he will, in the exercise of his duties and powers under the Act, and in giving effect to this Order, have due regard to the possibilities of the encouragement of the family and the enlargement of the opportunities of family life.

Mr. Foot: However sympathetic the Minister may be, if this Order passes, how will it be possible for him to make any allowance for a child beyond the fourth child? If the Order is passed, will not his hands be tied in this respect?

Sir P. Hannon: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his interruption. I suggest that it is just possible to amend an Order of this kind, and if my hon. Friend on the Front Bench could find an opportunity and means of amending the Order and extending the schedule of payments in respect of injuries incurred in Civil Defence to a larger number of children, I am sure it would give the House great gratification. I have great confidence in the Minister to do the best he can and give consideration to the encouragement of that part of our national life which at present needs consideration.

6.27 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: I want to make only two points which have not been made in this extraordinarily interesting Debate. Everybody is agreed that the particular scheme before us is highly unsatisfactory. We were all agreed that the soldiers' and sailors' allowances were unsatisfactory, and we have to look forward in the immediate future to a number of Orders like this which nobody can consider satisfactory, and we doubt very much whether the Minister himself can consider them satisfactory. We are not looking at the problem from the point of view either of the injured person or of the children, but from the point of view of what will be the state of the national finances. If the war goes on for any length of time, we shall have the most complicated conditions with regard to pensions and compensation of all kinds. The days of the comparative simplicity of the pensions for the Army, Navy and Air Force are over. There can now be every conceivable kind of injury, and people engaged in all sorts

of employment have to be compensated. There are air-raid wardens, members of the Auxiliary Fire Services, ambulance drivers and A.R.P. workers generally. There will be gradation after gradation in which nobody really can say, in any number of shillings, what it will be at the end of the week. You cannot form any equitable basis for dealing with the situation.
The Minister should not look at this from the point of view of how many shillings, or pence even, we can afford to dole out to any number of casualties we can now envisage, bearing in mind the fact that the whole actuarial basis may be swept away in a week if we had, for example, a mass attack on this country. Would it not be better to say that this country has now admitted the right of the citizen born into it to have a reasonable standard of maintenance, the word "reasonable" being qualified by what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) said, whether the injury is actually mutilation or whether it is the economic injury of being unable to find work under the economic conditions that exist? In the long run, I am convinced that that would be a much better way than what is proposed. I am afraid that we are going to have such an army of officials deciding what is due to people and whether this particular shade of liability of the Government shall be compensated with 6d. more or 9d. less that we shall be in a state of inexplicable confusion. One is only putting forward general ideas, but it seems to me that in the long run the course that I suggest would be the best way of dealing with the problem.
May I deal with a point that was raised in regard to: the compensation of the married working-class mother? It is extraordinary that the whole tendency of legislation to-day is to penalise the married woman. Only the unmarried woman or the widow is a person who is regarded in her own right. When a woman marries, you take away from her the right to, her own nationality. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), myself, and others have been on a large number of deputations to various Home Secretaries, but we have found always a stone wall on this question, and I am afraid that we shall not convince the Home Secretary and the Minister for


Home Security on this point. The single woman has the right to her own nationality. Nobody can deprive her of her nationality. But the married woman loses her nationality on marriage, and now under this Order we have a situation where the married woman loses the right to compensation for her own bodily injury. There is an interesting point in the Order, where the Minister gives the highest concession that he possibly can give to the married woman, where he says that in certain circumstances she may even have the offer of being treated as if she were unmarried. He cannot do better than that under this Order. I am speaking for my unfortunate sisters who have placed themselves in this position of inferiority in the sight of the law by marriage. Seeing that so many of them are citizens and voters they will have something to say to the Government on this matter. It is a very dangerous precedent that the Minister is creating.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Evans: I am sure that the Minister under this scheme has no desire except to act in such a way as to gain the satisfaction of the public. I should, however, like to refer to one or two matters in particular. Paragraph 21 of the Order, in effect, gives the Minister the right to make awards just as he thinks fit. It seems to me that that paragraph gives him power to take into consideration many elements which Members of this House would not wish to be taken into consideration in deciding the amount to be awarded to an injured person. I have in mind a particular case which seems to show that when a person is injured and he makes an application for compensation he has to go through what is really a means test, and I believe I am sensing the opinion of the whole House when I say that that is the last thing that the House would wish to impose upon a civilian and a Civil Defence officer with regard to injuries at this time.
I have in my hand the particulars of a certain case. It is the case of an auxiliary fireman who was injured in the course of his duties as an auxiliary fireman on Thursday, 21st September of this year. His doctor certified that he was unfit for duty. On Saturday, 23rd September, he attended at the office where he was paid

his wages and was told to apply to the Unemployment Assistance Board at Walthamstow. He did this and was asked whether his wife was at home, how many children he had and many other questions which really had a very close relationship to what I have called the means test, as applied in other directions with which we are familiar. He completed the form on the Saturday. By the following Thursday he had heard nothing from the Unemployment Assistance Board office, and on inquiry he was told that they could do nothing until they had heard from the Home Office. The man returned to his home, where he received a letter from his wife, who had been evacuated from London, saying that she had no money and asking him to send her some.
He then went back to the Unemployment Assistance Board office at Waltham-stow and, after some discussion, he was given a notice which said that he was entitled to 27s., but in order to get the 27s. he would have to go to Ponders End. He went to Ponders End, and when he got there and handed in-the notice he was told that before he could receive the money he would have to sign the unemployment register. He told them that he could not do that because he was not unemployed. He was engaged for a considerable time in argument and was finally told that unless he signed the unemployment register he could not get the money. The poor man in the end signed the unemployment register, because he wanted the money. He was kept at that Employment Exchange from 3.15 until 5.45 that afternoon. On the following day he attended at the Employment Exchange and received his 27s. The man was, however, feeling anxious, because he had signed the unemployment register when he was not unemployed and he thought he had better put matters right. He went to the Unemployment Assistance Board office at Walthamstow and told them what he had done. Then he went to the fire station and informed his superintendent of the whole affair, and the superintendent told him that he would have to go to an address in Bridport Road. He could not go that night but he went the following day. That was the Saturday, a week after his accident. The office was shut. On making inquiries he was told to go to the divisional officer at High


Road, Tottenham. He went there, but no help could be given him there. So he went to Edmonton Town Hall. From there he was sent to a day nursery. At the day nursery he was told that the Unemployment Assistance Board were the proper people to deal with him. They were the people to whom he had been orginally. It was too late to do anything more that day. The matter was left over until the following Tuesday, 3rd October. He again went to the Unemployment Assistance Board office, and they again gave no help.
He went to his doctor on 7th October, and the doctor told him that he would have to stay off for another week or 10 days. The poor man explained his trouble to the doctor and asked him how he was to live in the meantime, begging the doctor to allow him to go back to work. In the result, the doctor allowed him to go back, and he resumed work on Monday, 9th October. On 16th October, after being on duty 12 hours, he went to the Unemployment Assistance Board office and was kept waiting from 10.15 till 12 noon. That visit was not fruitless, because he then received the sum of 37s. 6d. The facts are that from 21st September, when the injury occurred, to 9th October, the man received the total sum of 64s. 6d. for himself, his wife and two children, and that involved journeys to Walthamstow six times and journeys to Tottenham, Ponders End and other places.
This is the history of one particular case, and I am told that it is not the only case that could be brought forward. I mention the case because the facts deserve inquiry. I also mention it for a larger reason, and that is that if what I am told is true the questions put to this man, who was engaged patriotically in doing voluntary service in a dangerous occupation, were questions which really went in the direction of what I call the means test. I do not think that is what the House of Commons wants. If a man sustains an injury in an occupation of this kind, surely he is entitled to fair compensation for his injuries. I think that the Minister, who is taking to himself powers which he himself cannot exercise, but which we will have to exercise through agencies, should make sure when appointing these other agencies that they are people who will consider very sympathetically these matters, more sympa-

thetically than the Minister of Pensions has been doing of late. His duty, and the duty of these officials, is not to look for reasons for refusing an application but to look for reasons for granting them.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: After listening to the Debate and also to the Debate of last week I am wondering how the Government get the assurance which they so often display that this House is behind them in what they are proposing to do. On the previous occasion the Minister suggested that nobody had called attention to the defects in the scheme and objected to their being pointed out afterwards. I am referring to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the Debate on the question of allowances. In regard to this scheme, however, it can be said that the defects were foreseen and hints were given to the Minister as to what should be avoided. Yet the very things which it was pointed out on this side of the House should be avoided have been included in this Order. I have not had the privilege of being in the House very long but I believe that when the Government receive a Prayer which is worth answering, an answer is given, and, therefore, I hope that this Order will be withdrawn and a better one substituted.
Yesterday, having a day to myself for the first time for a long while, I read, out of curiosity more than anything else, a contract which had been entered into by my wife while I was away with a certain newspaper. She was to take the newspaper week by week and there was an insurance scheme involved in it. That document, from the standpoint of clarity, was better than the Order which we are discussing. You had to meet with an accident and to prove the accident up to the hilt before you could get the money, but the individual who does meet with an accident and is insured with that particular newspaper—I will not mention it —has a better chance of receiving payment than the individual who meets with an accident does under this Order. In the first place, I must object strongly to the fact that an injury is not looked upon as being an injury until it has lasted for seven days. I have always wondered upon what basis schemes of insurance relating to the workers are based. I have never been able to understand why a worker had to be ill for three days before the Ministry of Health said he was ill.
He might die before the three days are out, yet, according to the Ministry of Health, he has not been ill. Under this scheme a man can meet with an accident which leads to his death, but that cannot be proved until he has been off work for seven days. Why the seven days? Are they intended to give the Minister an opportunity of dodging his responsibilities, or is it to prevent the individual being in a position to scrounge? Is it suggested that the individual who will be affected is in such an occupation that he will have saved sufficient out of his wages to be able to manage for seven days without any trouble? The case mentioned by the hon. Member for the Welsh University (Mr. E. Evans) proves that they are not in that category.
Again, I want to protest that a married woman is treated as though she is not engaged in a gainful occupation. I cannot understand how the work of a mother in the home can be looked upon as anything but gainful. If it is suggested that she does not get paid for it, I want to say to the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill), who pleaded for equality, that I think there should be equality before the law as there is in practice equality in all decent households. I have never had the privilege of spending my own wages. I never wanted it. I have recognised from the first that as chancellor of the exchequer my wife had me beaten to a cocked hat; and all other hon. Members would say the same if they were honest. The carrying on of a home is the most gainful occupation I know. We have had speeches which have proved that if there is one thing which will need to be repaired after the tragedy of this war it is the thing which only the mothers of the land can do; they are the only individuals who are capable of it. Yet the Minister falls into the strange anomaly of admitting that a wife is engaged in gainful occupation. If there are four children and the wife is there, they get 11s. 8d., but if there are four children and the wife is not there the family get 16s. 8d. The Minister, therefore, belies the suggestion in the scheme that a woman is not engaged in a gainful occupation because, apparently, she is worth more if she is not there. I think she is entitled to be considered as having earned the difference.
I want, as a fourth child myself, to protest against being treated as if I were worth nothing. It may be that this new doctrine has been evolved by some Government Department; it is the law of diminishing returns. I do not know by what sense or logic these scales or any other scales should differentiate between children. I hope that these anomalies will be rectified. I heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and what he said about the Minister. I have no fault to find with the Minister's humanitarian feelings or with the wonderful qualities about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. I know that he addresses letters to hon. Members pointing out that under certain Acts of Parliament he is powerless to do this, that and the other. His heart may bleed for the cases put before him, yet having laid down the regulations he is unable to move, and is powerless to do anything. The power to do it or not to do it is contained in this document, but only within certain limits that are laid down. It may be very difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but in my judgment, it will be just as difficult for an individual who suffers an injury to receive an award under this scheme. In paragraph 28, it is stated that:
No award may be made under this Scheme in respect of the death of any person who died as the result of an injury sustained by him more than seven years before the date of his death.
Again, there is brought into the scheme what everybody, even the Government, has recognised to be a very unfair condition. In paragraph 27, it is stated that:
No award may be made under this Scheme in respect of any injury which was sustained by reason of the serious negligence or misconduct of the person injured.
Would it be possible, particularly in the case of men and women engaged in Civil Defence, to prove, under that provision, that the individual who had suffered injury had not been neglectful in some way or another? What is to be regarded as neglect? Would it be neglect if a person had failed to carry out some particular order? In the case of workmen's compensation, in connection with which this question often arises, we know that there is a court of appeal where these things can be argued, but in this case the only appeal is to be


to the Minister, and not to the Minister's human feelings, but to the Minister on the lines laid down in the scheme. I hope that the Prayer will not only be answered, but that having answered the Prayer to annul the Order, the Government will prepare a better scheme.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. George Hall: The House is indebted to the two hon. Ladies who brought this Prayer before us. It is fitting that this Debate should follow so closely the Debate which took place last week on the allowances to soldiers' wives and dependants and to war pensioners. The two Debates have been very similar in the sense that the Government have not had a single friend on either side of the House. There has been nothing but condemnation of the scheme, and the allowances under the Royal Warrant, and certain of the allowances to soldiers' wives and dependants. This is an indication that the Government are lacking in imagination in dealing with these vital human problems, and I hope that, not only with regard to this scheme, the withdrawal of which I trust the Minister will announce when he speaks, but with regard to other schemes for dealing with the abnormal conditions that have arisen, the Government will give serious consideration to the matter. One Sunday newspaper describes these allowances as being shabby. All that the Minister has been able to plead is that the allowances were most carefully considered before the war began, that is to say, before its human aspects had acquired the vividness which they now possess; and this indicates, on the part of the Government, a complete lack of understanding of the difficulties with which the wives and dependants of the men who are called upon to sacrifice their lives will be faced in the very near future.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) described the Bill giving power for the setting up of this scheme as a skeleton. It is the scheme that matters. Now we have the scheme before us, and I do not think even the Minister is surprised at the criticism that has been levelled against it. It is a good thing for the Minister that the provisions of the scheme were not contained in the Bill, for it they had been it would have taken much longer to pass the Bill through the House. I recollect the pas-;
sage of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and certain provisions of this scheme are infinitely worse than the provisions of that Act. There is nothing original in the scheme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) pointed out, the Minister himself admitted that it had been based partly on the war pensions rates, partly on the workmen's compensation rates, and partly on National Health Insurance rates. With such a mixture, what could one expect but a scheme of this kind? As my hon. Friend rightly said, the Minister has not even taken the best out of the three schemes to which he referred in his speech on the introduction of the Bill; and even if he had taken the best out of those schemes, he must know that there is not a part of them which has not been condemned, either from the point of view of the rates or the conditions under which the schemes operate, the rates because they are inadequate and the conditions because they are obnoxious.
The criticisms that have been levelled against the scheme have covered almost every point. I cannot understand why the Minister should want to divide a scheme of this sort into two parts. Part II deals with allowances, and then, if the injury is a very serious one, the provisions in Part III are brought into operation for the purpose of dealing with exactly the same accident. The scheme is not giving, but is taking away. It supersedes all claims under workmen's compensation, employers' liability, common law and health insurance benefit during the period of an award under the scheme. In making a comparison between workmen's compensation and this scheme, some of my hon. Friends have referred to the fact that under workmen's compensation there are three waiting days for which there is no payment in respect of an injury, whereas under this scheme there are seven days. I would point out that under workmen's compensation, if the incapacity lasts for a month, payment is made from the very first day. I cannot understand why, in a scheme of this sort, if the injury or incapacity is proved, the compensation or allowances cannot be paid from the first day.
In Part II of the scheme there is something which is contrary to the practice under workmen's compensation. Workmen's compensation is based on earnings, and no distinction is made between men


and women. Compare the position under the workmen's compensation law with the position under this scheme of allowances. Under the scheme, it is true, a married man, irrespective of earnings, is entitled to 30s. a week if he proves that his injury is the result of the eventualities provided for under the scheme. But if he is single, irrespective of age, he is entitled only to 18s. a week, which is 12s. less than the allowance paid to the married man. A woman is entitled to 16s. If a man is under 21 and unmarried the amount of compensation which he will receive will be 9s. and a woman will receive 8s. a week. These rates, alone, condemn the scheme of allowances root and branch. There is a marked difference between the rates of pay under workmen's compensation and the rates of pay under this scheme, and the Minister cannot claim any generosity for the scheme from that point of view.
Then, compare the payments under Part II with those under Part III of the scheme. If the Minister in the exercise of his powers under the scheme decides that an injury is such that the income of the affected person should be transferred from allowance to pension, there is a considerable increase in the amount paid. A person who, as the result of medical examination, has been held to be entitled to a pension based upon 100 per cent. disablement will receive 32s. 6d. a week, or an increase of 2s. 6d. a week. In the pension scheme there are provisions whereby his wife will be entitled to an extra 5s., making a total for husband and wife of 37s. 6d. a week. In the case of a single man over 21, if it is proved that his incapacity is likely to be prolonged, the amount which he receives at once jumps from 18s. to 32s. 6d. In the pension rate there is an intermediate stage at which the single man or woman between 18 and 21 will receive something more than they would get under the system of allowances. As I say, I cannot see why it has been considered necessary to divide schemes into parts. If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Minister that a person is suffering incapacity as a result of the circumstances indicated here, there is no reason why the rates provided for under Part III should not operate as and from the first day of incapacity. If the Minister wishes to do the right thing by those who come

within the scope of this scheme he should, at once, withdraw Part II.
I do not propose to take up much time in dealing with Part III, which, as the Minister said, is largely based on the Royal Warrant dealing with pensions. I think it has been clearly shown that neither hon. Members on this side of the House nor hon. Members opposite are satisfied with the Royal Warrant as it exists, and I hope that as a result of last week's Debate the Government are seriously considering amending the Royal Warrant. But let it be formed in mind that before a person can receive the amount of compensation to which I have referred, he must be certified as suffering from 100 per cent. disablement. Once the degree of disablement is brought below 100 per cent. down comes the amount of compensation payable in respect of the interest. Hon. Members who have had the handling of war pension cases know that before a person can receive the full 100 per cent. of compensation he must have met with an injury which has completely disabled him, such as the amputation of two legs or two arms, or complete blindness. The loss of one leg or one arm is assessed, not at 100 per cent. but at 50 per cent. of disablement.
The Minister and the Government must know that if men engaged in industry suffer disability entitling them to a pension of only 50 per cent. under this scheme, it will be impossible for those men to get work in many industries. Take my own industry of coal-mining. I doubt whether a person who had met with an injury such as the loss of an eye outside that industry would be considered for employment in the coal mines. The same statement applies to many other industries. Take the case of employment on the railways as another example. I should say that in 60 per cent. of the industries of the country a person classified under the Royal Warrant or under this scheme as suffering from 50 per cent., or even 40 per cent. or 30 per cent., of disability would be deprived of the chance of employment. Even under Part III the amount of compensation based upon 50 per cent. disability is only 16s. 3d. instead of 32s. 6d., for the man, with an equivalent reduction in the wife's allowance, which would be 2s. 6d. instead of 5s., and in the children's allowance. Nothing can commend a scheme of this kind to the acceptance of the House and the country.
If such a scheme were offered as a basis of compensation in industry, no industry would put up with it. I am sure the mining industry would take steps to see that such a scheme was not applied to it. Our scheme of compensation is bad enough, but this is infinitely worse, and I beg the Minister of Pensions to withdraw the scheme and bring in one which will be more in keeping with the desires of hon. Members of this House.
With all that I have said, I think it is true to say, as we have heard this afternoon, that it is the women who have the real grievance under this scheme, and, as I expected, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mrs. Adamson) and other hon. Members have dealt fully with the difficulty which must arise as a result of the operation of this scheme with regard, not only to women, but to children as well. I will not say anything more about the question of the womenfolk, because I could not add a single word to the very eloquent pleas which have been put from all sides of the House in connection with them, but I want to add a word or two to what has been said in connection with the children's allowances. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) today, as last Wednesday, made a very powerful plea for increased allowances for the children, and he referred to this scheme in which there are four different scales for the children. First, under the allowances, there is a scale of 3s.; then, under pensions, there is a scale of 5s., and two at 3s. 4d.; then, under the pensions, where the father has lost his life or has been fatally injured through an accident for which we are providing in this scheme, there is 5s. per week; and for an orphan, which we can quite understand, there is 7s. 6d. a week.
It is very interesting to note that, with five Departments in the State concerned, there are no fewer than 11 different scales dealing with children's allowances. The Ministry of Health has three, the Ministry of Labour two, the Army, Navy, and Air Force have others, and now we come to the hon. Member the Minister for Pensions, and he has in this scheme alone four different scales. Is it beyond the comprehension of Ministers to understand what it actually costs to maintain a child? Why is it that the Departments cannot get together and devise some scheme? A child is a child, whether he is the child of a soldier, a

third child getting 2s. a week or a fourth child getting 1s., whether his or her father has been injured under this scheme, or whether the incapacity is for a long or a short period. There ought not to be any difference in the amount of allowances paid in respect of children, and it shows that those who are responsible for arranging these schemes of payments or allowances—call them what you like—have absolutely no understanding of the difficulties with which the working people of this country are faced. Different hon. Members have referred to the fact that they were a fourth, a fifth, or a sixth child. I was one of eight.

Viscountess Astor: I was one of 11.

Mr. Hall: I get nothing, but in the home I would get something, and I would get it only as the result of a sacrifice, the sacrifice of the mother or the older children. I do beg of the Minister and those who are acting with him to see that it is not the dead hand of the Treasury that is always going to lead, not only this Government, but this House and the country, into muddle after muddle such as we have been led into in fixing these allowances, not only during the course of the last year, but for some considerable time past. Is it beyond the wit of the Treasury, or the Departments, or even the Prime Minister, to get together a committee representative of this House, if they cannot decide for themselves, to fix a scale for children and also for widows and elderly people who have to be brought under Government schemes through no fault of their own?
Section 5 of the Act gives the Minister power to obtain information as to earnings and other financial matters in connection with an injured person for any period before he has sustained the injury, and I must say that I have been a little alarmed at the information which was given by my hon. Friend the Member for the Welsh University (Mr. E. Evans) in reciting certain circumstances connected with a case which he put before the House. I do hope that the Minister himself will see that this scheme is administered in quite a different manner from the way in which it was administered in the case referred to. I want him to give an assurance to this House that there is to be no means test. I cannot understand why we have this provision in Section 5,


unless it is the intention of the Minister to apply a means test. Let me repeat what has been said on so many occasions during this Debate. We do not like this limitation which is given to the term "gainfully employed." It is true that under our insurance schemes in this country we have something like 18,000,000 to 20,000,000 people. Under our health insurance and unemployment insurance there is a good deal of duplication, but they are people who are gainfully employed in accordance with the scheme. I would reiterate what has been said from all sides, and in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Farn-worth (Mr. Tomlinson). The most valuable member of our household is my wife. If I were to tell her that she was not gainfully employed in what may be regarded as the common term, there would be a row in the house in a very short time.
I must say that not only children, but womenfolk also, are very badly treated under this scheme. There are no pensions for young persons engaged in unpaid household or other duties, there are no pensions or allowances for non-occupied men, such as old age pensioners, men incapable of work for physical or other reasons, or elderly and retired men, and, as has already been pointed out, there are no allowances for women engaged in unpaid household duties, except for the miserable amount which has been referred to on so many occasions. This scheme indicates that there are grave errors both in principle and in administration. These errors are being committed by the Government in almost everything which they bring before the House, and there are few more grave than in their treatment of men who have suffered incapacity or fatal injury as a result of the war, and of their dependants. We think these errors are unpardonable at a time like this, for they shake any confidence which the people may have placed in the Government, and they create, with justification, suspicion and dissension among all the people. We think the scales of payment under this scheme, if used, must plunge the homes of men and women who are wounded or killed into such a frightening poverty that it will make the people of this country ashamed of the Government that is responsible. It must be remembered

that the men coming under this scheme, are those men who are fighting in the trenches, on the sea, or in the air, are fighting the nation's battle with great courage and sacrifice and should not be rewarded by poverty for those whom they leave behind. This is not how the nation wishes to pay its debt of honour, and it will insist that the Government must replace these and other rates by proposals which are far more reasonable and consistent with one another. That is the only way to get the people to respond to the call made on the thousands of posters up and down this country in these words:
It is your courage, your cheerfulness, your resolution, which will bring us to victory.
It will be but an empty victory unless the Government do something more than is contained in this scheme to alleviate the poverty and the suffering of the people. That is why this Prayer was placed upon the Order Paper, and that is why we shall ask the House, unless the Minister gives us satisfaction, to join with us in deciding that the Order shall be annulled.

7.20 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): May I join in the chorus of congratulation to the hon. Lady who put down this Prayer, and say how indebted I am to her for her criticism of this scheme? No wise Minister considers any scheme which he brings forward as perfect, particularly a scheme on such a unique subject. The hon. Lady and I, and all those who have taken part in the Debate, can congratulate themselves on one thing, at any rate, that this scheme is unique in any legislative assembly in the world. This is the first time in history that a scheme has been brought forward to give compensation to civilian sufferers from war. It is true that in the last war and in many other wars funds have been raised from charitable sources to alleviate the difficulties and sufferings of unfortunate civilian victims of war. We can say, however, that whether this scheme is good, bad or indifferent, it is the first scheme under which the Government have taken the sole responsibility for dealing with those among the civilian population who suffer from enemy action. The Debate is unique in another direction. Those who have taken part mostly belong to the feminine sex, and it has given an opportunity for the Lady Members of the House


to voice their opinions in unity. I am bound to say that they have been pretty well united on this issue.
A number of Members have taken pride in the fact that they belonged to large families and they have regarded their wives as the household chancellors of the exchequer. I want to join with them in that. I am the sixth of a family of seven, and I am pleased to say that all of them grew up and that my mother reared the whole family. [An HON. MEMBER: "On a shilling a week?"1 My first earnings were 2s. 6d. a week and they were a very welcome addition to the household. If I went into what some of us had to suffer in those days it would be a little illuminating to some hon. Members. I have been through this, and I know and understand what it means for a working-class woman to have to carry on on a meagre sum. My sympathies are all with these women. I remember that in my younger days my mother used to say that any household which had a pound a week regular was fortunate. We would not say that to-day, but that was the position of the working-class in those days. I am going to show that I have taken that into account in dealing with this Order. I believe that I had the finest mother in the world and that my wife is the finest lady in the world. She is the chancellor of the exchequer of our household. I hope she gets that message before I arrive home at the week-end. We are all proud of our wives, of course.
May I make a few general remarks about this scheme? [Interruption.] If hon. Members will permit me to proceed —this is not a branch meeting of a union. It is due to me that I should be allowed to give a proper explanation of this scheme in view of its unique character. We have to realise that the home front is a very different thing from the home front in former wars. We are all in the front line now, whether we are on the home front or on the front across the seas. An old friend with whom I served said to me that when the chaps went away in the last war they went under the impression that their own people at home would be safe, and it was some satisfaction to them. Those who go to the front in this war, he said, will feel that possibly they have the safest place. It depends, of course, on the action of the enemy. At any rate, under modem war conditions those who stay at home to do their

job are in the front line trenches so far as air attack is concerned. A good deal of pressure was brought on the Government because of the fact that those who are responsible for insurance under workmen's compensation refused to include a Clause that would embrace war risks, and it was felt it would not be fair to expect employers of labour to assume the responsibility of enemy action.
On 31st January last the Chancellor made a promise to the House, and said that the loss ought not to be left where it happened to fall, that is, on the people who were injured. The Government decided that that promise must be implemented, and the question was as to the best form a scheme should take. I would point out to the hon. Lady who moved the Prayer that if it were accepted there would be difficulty in dealing with the claims that are now coming in. If there are defects in the scheme they can be dealt with, but it would not be wise to withdraw the scheme until we had another ready. Without this scheme, good, bad, or indifferent as we may view it, loss through enemy action would fall upon the injured persons, or the dependants of those killed, or on some agency made liable by Statute for injuries sustained in civil life and not safeguarded against war risks. Even in the scheme of national health insurance there is no provision to deal with war injuries. Of course, those injured could have claimed under the Insurance Act for the payment of sick allowances, but it would have put an intolerable burden on the funds of approved societies and of the health insurance scheme. It was thought to be essential that we should have a scheme whereby the Government, without charging any premiums to anybody, assumed the liability for injuries to the civil population by enemy action.
I believe that the scheme is an essential part of the arrangements for the relief of war distress. I am glad to say that existing means for the relief of distress are very much better than those we had in 1914. At that time many of those who, unfortunately, were thrown out of employment by the outbreak of war found themselves absolutely dependent upon either Poor Law assistance or private charity. Now, of course, we have the unemployment assistance scheme, and so on, and, whether the scales are ade-


quate or not, at any rate that is better than nothing. That is as far as I go with that point. In fixing the scales under this new scheme our decisions have to be governed by the overriding consideration that the resources of the Government to provide compensation for injury to persons, equally with damage to property, are not unlimited. There is a general request for compensation for damage to property, but I agree with many hon. Members who have spoken that it is only fair that we should deal first with the damage to human life. The hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) asked, "Why are the Government going to grant 100 per cent. compensation for property and yet give these very moderate allowances to human beings who may suffer disability?" As a matter of fact, there is no such proposal about property. Proeprty is to be dealt with when the war is over, when the nation will be able to reckon up its liabilities and its assets in order to see what it can do.

Major Milner: Did not the Weir Committee recommend that liability should be accepted up to 100 per cent. in the case of property, and have not the Government accepted that report?

Sir W. Womersley: No. I will deal with that point when I come to the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member. I refer to it now only in passing because it fits in. Whatever the Weir Committee recommended that is not the policy of the Government. We are dealing with the human element now, immediately, not leaving their case till the war is over. I have made this very clear in my former speech. What did the hon. Member say?

Mr. Foot: I was suggesting that the hon. Member might get on to the points raised in the Debate.

Sir W. Womersley: If the hon. Member had the experience of Parliament that I have, and that his father had, he would not have made such a remark. Some people think that theirs are the only points that matter, but a number of hon. Members have made points and they are going to be answered. After that little interlude I will go on with my speech as I was proposing to make it. I was asking hon. Members to consider whether the resources

of the Government are limited or unlimited. As I said when I spoke on the question of pensions, this is not the last word. This scheme has been brought forward so that we can get on with the business. When the war is over I cannot imagine a British House of Commons not doing what I am going to suggest now. Then we shall be able to calculate what our liabilities will be. I could not give a calculation to the Treasury now. I was asked whether I could give any idea of what the liabilities might be under this scheme, and I was bound to admit that I could not. I could mention colossal figures, but it all depends upon Herr-Hitler and the success of those machines of war of which he boasts. I hope that the liabilities will be very small, and I am sure that every Member of the House hopes so. When it is over, however, we shall know what our liabilities are and know also what our resources are. In 1919, after the last war had ended, this House insisted upon a thorough investigation and upon a new Royal Warrant being introduced, and unless I am mistaken, whatever House of Commons is in existence when this war is over it will insist upon a review of the whole position.
The basis of this scheme of compensation is, first, to give priority to Civil Defence undertakings, because of their definite risk and then we go on to deal with businesses engaged in essential work. In the national interest the people remain at work in spite of being in a risky area. Some people have fled from what they thought would be dangerous areas, but there are many others who have remained in the dangerous areas to carry on their employment in the national interest, and we think they ought to receive the first consideration, along with those who are National Service volunteers. There are some other classes, but that is because they cannot be counted out of industry altogether, though to base a system of compensation on those people would be very difficult. Let me point out that the compensation scheme is designed on what my fisherman who served in the last war used to describe as "blood money." It is not a question of reward; it is a question of compensation for loss sustained by reason of an injury and is based on a scale which is commensurate with that for a private soldier in the British Army.
There has been no attempt to adjust the payments to the amount of economic loss, because we felt that if we began to differentiate between the various classes of the community we should not only find many difficulties but come up against that very old problem of making a close investigation into the earnings of those who were claimants. We thought it was better to have a flat rate which we could regard as fair. This has some relation to the average scales of existing civil schemes. When I mentioned this previously exception was taken to it because I mentioned that we had taken the rates already in existence. That does not mean that we regard it as a model scale, but in getting out figures we wanted to be as near as possible to the scales of workmen's compensation and other forms of compensation granted for disability. If the rates are examined, it will be seen that in most cases they are higher than the rates under workmen's compensation and only lower in a very few cases. I suggest that this scheme ought not to be dropped. We ought to go on with it, and if we can improve it so much the better. It does relieve employers of their obligations and it does provide that at any rate something shall be paid to those who are injured by enemy action and have no right to claim under the Workmen's Compensation Acts.
Having given the broad details of the scheme and the considerations which we had to take into account, I will now say a word or two on some of the questions which have been raised. If I deal with questions raised by several hon. Members at the same time, perhaps it will save time and we may get away earlier. The position of wives has been brought up— I think that was the chief criticism against the scheme on the part of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mrs. Adamson)—injured wives who are not gainfully occupied persons or volunteers. The Government have clearly laid down the principle that there can be no inherent right in the general population to compensation in the fact of injury, and that any liability accepted by the State towards those who are injured in the performance of public service must be in respect of actual loss resulting from the injury. Moreover, it is regarded as reasonable to limit compensation, in respect of injury to persons who are not themselves gain-

fully occupied, to those cases in which the family circumstances give evidence of actual need. Within the limits thus defined, the scheme provides for grants within the normal women's pensions scale of the rate of remuneration paid in these matters. An hon. Member wanted to know about what he called the means test. I tried to make it clear on the Second Reading of the Bill that there would be no means test.

Miss Wilkinson: Is the piece of typewriting which the hon. Gentleman has just read out all that he proposes to say on the subject of women's allowances?

Sir W. Womersley: No, Sir. I do not want the hon. Lady to talk like that. I was just going on to speak about needs. As regards the case brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans), I want to go into it. I will certainly make full inquiries into it, if the hon. Member will give me the details. If the facts are as stated, the case is wholly contrary to our instructions.

Mr. E. Evans: I shall be very glad to send the details to the hon. Gentleman.

Sir W. Womersley: I will have the case investigated at once. An hon. Member raised the question of giving the allowance to the wife and not to the husband. That question is exercising the minds of not only hon. Ladies in this House, but of hon. Gentlemen also. There may be a good deal to be said for granting a pension to a woman apart from the earnings of her husband, but we wanted, in this scheme, to be fair to the wife. I would not class her altogether in the same light as a spinster or a widow, because she has her husband, if he is not injured, to support her as he promised to do in sickness and in health.

Mr. Dunn: Does the hon. Gentleman refer to the spinsters?

Sir W. Womersley: No, Sir. The spinster has not a husband to keep her, and she has not quite the same support. A man may be in a good position to support his wife, even though she happens to be injured. You must stick to the basic principle that this is a question of compensation to meet loss sustained, and not one of compensation for injury. A pension given to that kind of wife might


be one that she could very well do without.
A good deal has been said about the working-class household. You cannot expect a man who is doing a full day's work to be able to give his wife any assistance in the house, and the compensation given under this scheme would be for the assistance required for that house. A case where there was actual need would be dealt with by compensation. We have to provide for the working-class woman, and that is what I am concerned about. We are now being told that we are not doing the right thing because we are not extending this compensation to all and sundry. In the working out of the scheme it will be found that the working-class housewife will not suffer, as some hon. Members believe. If, on further examination, I am convinced that the working-class housewife is not getting a square deal, I shall be prepared to recommend alterations.
Speaking of the whole scheme, I am very desirous that we should have a perfectly good one that will work. Hon. Members have said a lot about it not being as good as it ought to be, but no one can produce a scheme of this magnitude entirely new and original, having no precedents from which to quote or anything in the way of a similar scheme before it, to be looked at, and yet avoid all defects. Anyone who could do that would be a wonderful person. I am prepared to consider very carefully the statements and representations that have been made. The main structure of the scheme is sound, and it is possible to fill in the little gaps and to put things right. I am prepared to give such matters full consideration. In regard to children's allowances—

Dr. Summerskill: I dealt in my speech with the question of the working housewife. Would the hon. Gentleman make a concession? It is admitted that the obstacle to giving proper compensation to those people is one of finance and cost. Would the hon. Gentleman make a concession that would not cost more than the postage? He said that the compensation which the working housewife would receive would be the cost of the woman who would come in and work for her and be her substitute; would the hon. Gentleman agree to pay the cost of that

substitute to the wife to distribute as she thinks fit? After all, it is her compensation. In this scheme you are allowing the husband to introduce the substitute into the home and to have the wife's compensation in his hands.

Sir W. Womersley: The hon. Lady is trying to lead me into a difficulty.

Dr. Summerskill: No, I am not.

Sir W. Womersley: I have heard a few arguments in my time from ladies who have tried to provoke me—

Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to base his reply on the sex of an hon. Member but that he should base it on the arguments put forward by Members of this House. Let us have some commonsense.

Dr. Summerskill: I am asking the Minister my question as a Member of Parliament, and not as a woman who wants to provoke him. I am asking him for a sensible answer. I do not know what kind of women do provoke him in this way. I have put a proposition to him which will not cost the Treasury a penny and which will give at least some kind of a square deal to the housewife.

Sir W. Womersley: All I can say is this: I have an advisory committee dealing with war pension warrants, and I intend to be guided by it a great deal in dealing with this and other pension schemes. Most of them follow along the lines of the Royal Warrant. I will make a note of the hon. Lady's suggestion and put it before the committee.

Mr. Jagger: Is that committee taking over the work of this House?

Sir W. Womersley: I was being cross-examined about these matters and I spoke of the advisory committee which will have to advise me. I have to take the responsibility and face the House of Commons. As I wish to seek the advice of hon. Members from that side of the House I asked the Chief Whip of the Opposition to nominate two hon. Members; as I feel it desirable to have some advice from hon. Members on this side or from the Liberal benches or from people of experience from outside this House—

Mr.Jagger: Is not that advisory committee taking over the work of this House?

Sir W. Womersley: I repeat that this committee will advise me. The advisory committee will be helpful; I am not one of those persons who think they know everything and cannot take advice from other people. I now want to deal with the question of children's allowances, a question which has been mentioned, I think, by every hon. Member who has spoken in this Debate. Hon. Members will probably remember that the Prime Minister, in answer to a question, said that as far as pensions were concerned the Minister would go very carefully into the matter. Realising, as my hon. Friend said, that we have so many different scales, there has been an inter-departmental committee set up. The various Departments have these scales to deal with, with the assistance, of course, of a representative of the Treasury. [Interruption.] I am sure that hon. Members would be very sorry if the Treasury were not represented there. After all, they have a function to perform. This inter-departmental committee is sitting not just at this moment, but is in active session day by day, and I am hopeful that a scheme will be brought forward in relation to children's allowances which will wipe away the anomalies of having so many different scales and, I hope, will be acceptable in all parts of the House. I do not know what sort of scheme they will bring forward, but they will deal with the matters to which I have referred.

Mr. G. Hall: Will the Minister tell us who the members are?

Sir W. Womersley: I am sure that the hon. Member after his long experience knows that that is not usually done; in fact, it is never done.

Mr. Bevan: Before the Minister continues, are we to understand that he has already come to the conclusion that the scheme in connection with children's allowances is unsatisfactory, that the inter-departmental committee has actually been asked to advise him on certain alterations, and that he will bring those alterations to the notice of the House?

Sir W. Womersley: The Prime Minister said that he had been impressed by the representations made and that is why the inquiry was instituted. That is as far as I can go.

Mr. Bevan: You cannot get away with it like that. That is nonsense.

Sir W. Womersley: Will the hon. Member realise that many hon. Members in this House have put questions to me, but have had the kindness to sit down and wait until they have had a reply?

Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. We want to know what your answer is. What is your answer?

Sir W. Womersley: I have told the hon. Member that there is an interdepartmental committee sitting on this matter, and their report will be given in due course and this House will be informed of it.

Mr. G. Hall: Could we know whether this inter-departmental committee will deal with all the Departments which are concerned with the payment of children's allowances, or will it confine itself to Service Departments?

Sir W. Womersley: You had better wait—

Mr. Bevan: That is nonsense.

Sir W. Womersley: It is for me to decide whether it is nonsense or not.

Mr. Bevan: No it is not.

Sir W. Womersley: It is for my Department to deal with it. I will now deal with other matters. The question of injury allowances has been referred to and reference has also been made to the question of the seven days waiting period. We have had to employ the Unemployment Assistance Board as our agents and the scheme has had to be devised and put into operation quickly. As far as we knew, we might have had many claims in the first week and we had to look around to find the best means for dealing with this matter. I think it will be agreed that we could not have had a better body than the Unemployment Assistance Board, because they have got offices in all parts of the country. Payment will be made by special postal drafts; in the case of pensions, they will be dealt with as other pensions are, namely, by the issue of a pensions book. We feel that those who have to receive these injury allowances should not be made to stand in a queue at the Unemployment Assistance Board offices or at Employment Exchanges, but they should receive their allowances by post in the ordinary way.
Many hon. Members have asked about Article 7, Sub-section (1), which says that


incapacity for less than seven days will not be compensated. The question has been asked why we should not start paying right away. I have been a secretary to a friendly society and I know that we had to have that waiting period. We have asked the House to agree to the seven days waiting period, because otherwise we shall be dealing with many thousands of very trifling injuries which do not develop into disabilities at all. When the incapacity does come payment will be made fully. The seven days will not be lost. The period of seven days is required to show that it is really an incapacity. It will, no doubt, save a good deal of trouble.

Mr. G. Hall: I do not know whether this is quite clear, but if a man is injured for seven days will the payment commence from the first day? Do I understand that if he is injured for seven days there is no waiting period at all?

Sir W. Womersley: No, it only means a seven days period before the compensation begins, and if the injury has not lasted seven days the man will not get any compensation.
I will now deal with the question of the right of appeal. This was raised on the Second Reading of the Bill by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) and our attention has also been called to it since. It is true that the right of appeal to tribunals was only introduced in the 1919 Act after the last war. As I have already indicated, there is not the slightest doubt that when it comes to a settlement at the end of this war, whatever Government is in power, there will be the right of appeal. I realise that it is a right which is very much cherished; it has not always worked out to the advantage of those who have appealed, but it is, nevertheless very valuable. During a period of war the setting up of tribunals up and down the country is an impossible task for any Minister to face. I have gone into this very carefully since the speeches which were made by the hon. Member, because I felt that he was in deadly earnest about the matter and felt that a great principle was at stake.
If it had been a question of laying down rules and regulations for all time, I should have been definitely in favour of a right of appeal, but I want hon. Members to visualise the position that I should be

in in dealing with these matters if I had not the power to give a final decision. I should have to set up these tribunals. First of all, it would be necessary to have medical men on them available to give evidence. I can assure the House that every medical man in the country has a job assigned to him. It would be almost impossible to get the machine working with any rapidity and to be able to get a settlement. It is better that the Minister should have the right to settle the question who is to receive disability pay or pensions, as the case may be. Can anyone say that since I took over the office I have not given favourable consideration to every case that has been brought to me? Many people can testify as to that. I agree that there should be a right of appeal when it is possible, but with the questions that we shall have to dea1 with now, with the responsibilities of war pensions for merchant seamen, fishermen and civilians injured by enemy action, it would be absolutely impossible to set up these tribunals and get through the work successfully. I think I have dealt fairly well with the points that have been raised.

Mrs. Adamson: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the point with regard to Clause 14 (3)? It says that, if a man dies who has been supporting a parent, an allowance shall be made to the parent, but not if he leaves a wife or child. So that, if a bachelor has been supporting a widowed mother, she would have a pension, but if a married man has been supporting his mother she would get nothing. I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will give a reason for this extraordinary discrimination.

Sir W. Womersley: The answer is this: It is the wife and children of the married man who will have to be compensated. If he has been making an allowance to his parents it seems fair on the surface that that allowance should continue, but we are dealing here with compensation for loss with limited resources. Where a single man has nothing to pay for a widow or children it goes to his father, mother or dependants. I will look further into the point, but the idea of making the discrimination was on the lines that I have described. I am going into many questions which have been raised to-day. I welcome the Debate because it has enabled me to sense the feeling of Members who represent the people in the country, and has given me some idea


what they consider are the features in the scheme that ought to be amended. With that promise I hope that I shall satisfy the hon. Lady and that she will withdraw the Motion, if only for the sake of those who are receiving compensation under the scheme. [An HON. MEMBER: "How many are there?"] Quite a number already. Not because there have been bombs dropped, but because of injuries received in the course of their employment.
With regard to the scheme for peacetime compensation for air-raid precautions volunteers, there has been some misunderstanding somewhere because I have an Order issued by the Home Office on 5th May last stating that the scheme would come to an end when war was declared and a new war scheme would be put into operation after that. The arrangement of £3 a week was one made by certain local authorities. I am informed that it was clearly stated that the new war-time scheme of compensation would come into operation for firemen as for other A.R.P. workers. It will, however, be inquired into to see if there has been any false information given or any misapprehension. I give the hon. Lady the assurance that I will go carefully into all these matters. I have made copious notes and I shall have the pleasure and profit of reading the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. I shall give the points most sympathetic consideration.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I have a case of a woman who was entitled to a Lloyd

George pension because her husband had paid in for 25 years, but because you have given her this pension you have taken away the other altogether. If a man gets killed in a coal mine to-day his wife draws compensation up to a maximum of £600 if she has two or three children. She also receives a pension from the Ministry of Health. She receives 10s. plus 5s., no matter how many children there are. This woman was receiving 15s. from Lloyd George, as we term it in the mining industry, but immediately you gave her the 22s. 6d. plus the 5s. you have taken the other away. I ask that you shall also consider that. Why not make this scheme as good as the Compensation Act? You would not touch the widow's pension if the husband was killed on the railway or in a mine or factory, but under this you say, "No. Although you have paid for 25 years for a widow's pension, you are not having a penny of it." I ask the Minister and the Minister of Health to take a matter of that kind into consideration and let the woman at least have what the husband has paid for for a quarter of a century.

Question put,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, 1939, dated 14th September, 1939, made under Section 1 of the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, a copy of which Scheme was presented to this House on the 15th day of September last, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 113, Noes, 137.

Division No. 306.]
AYES.
[8.11 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) 


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Foot, D. M.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Frankel, D.
John, W.


Amnion, C. G.
Gallasher, W.
Kirkwood, D.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Gardner, B. W.
Lansbury, Rt. Han. G.


Attles, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Lathan, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Groan, W. H. (Deptford)
Lawson. J. J.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Leach, W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Grenfell, D. R.
Lea, F.


Bavan, A.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Leslie, J. R.


Buchanan, G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Lagan, D. G.


Burke, W. A.
Griffiths, J. (Lunelly)
Lunn, W.


Charleston, H. C.
Graves, T. E.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
McEntee, V. La T.


Cooks, F. S.
Hall, J. H. (Whlteshapel)
Maclean, N.


Collindridge, F.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Daggar, G.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Mander, G. le M.


Dalton, H.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Unlv's.)
Marshall, F.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Maxton, J.


Dobbie, W.
Hills. A. (Pontefract)
Milner, Major J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Hollins, A.
Montague, F.


Ede, J. C.
Hopkin, D.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Haskney, S.)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Isaacs, G. A.
Naylor, T. E.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Jackson, W. F.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Evans, E. (Univ of Wales)
Jagger, J.
Oliver, G. H.




Paling, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Watson, W. McL.


Parker, J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Whiteley, W. (Blayden)


Pearson, A.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Pethick-Lawrencs, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Poole, C. C.
Stephen, C.
Williams, T. (Dan Valley)


Price, M. P.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Wilmot, John


Quibell, D. J. K.
Stokes, R. R.
Windsor, W. (Hall, C.)


Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Slrauss. G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Woodburn, A.


Ritson, J.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Roberta, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Thurtle, E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Tinker, J. J.



Shinwell, E.
Tomlinson, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Silkin, L.
Viant, S. P.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.


Sloan, A.
Watkins, F. C.





NOES.


Aoland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Grimston, R. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Albery, Sir Irving
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Hammersley, Captain S. S.
Procter, Major H. A.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)
Hannah, I. C.
Pym, L. R.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Radford, E. A.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Harbord, Sir A.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Haly-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Beauohamp, Sir B. C.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buehan-
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Blair, Sir R.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Rickards, G. W- (Skipton)


Beulten, W. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rowlands, G.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hume, Sir G. H.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Brabner, R. A.
Jennings, R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Kayes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Kimball, L.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R, J.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Liddall, W. S.
Spens, W. P.


Butcher, H. W.
Lipson, D. L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Christie, J. A.
Little, J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Colman, N. C. D.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
McConnell, Sir J.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Macdonald. Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Creft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Touche, G. C.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Magnay, T.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Wakefield, W. W.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Huff)


Culverwell, C. T.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Warrender, Sir V.


Davidson, Viscountess
Markham, S. F.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
White, Sir R. D. (Fareham)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Dunglass, Lord
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colenel G.


Emery, J. F.
Moreing, A. C.
Womerslsy, Sir W. J.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Nall, Sir J.
Major Sir James Edmondson


Gower, Sir R. V.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
and Mr. Munro.


Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

ARMY REMOUNTS (PURCHASE).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson.]

8.18 p.m.

Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Makins: I regret having to take up the time of the House and of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office this evening by a question that may not appear very important compared with that of the successful prosecution of the war; but a

serious situation has arisen with regard to the conditions under which valuable horses have been requisitioned, and this seriously affects the rights and property of their owners. Everyone in this country is having to endure crippling taxation, and all taxpayers have submitted with a good grace, realising that we have to win the war at all costs. But there is no reason why one section of the community should have to endure what amounts to a capital levy in addition to these taxes. I refer to the dealers in and owners of high-


class horses, which have been impressed in a high-handed way for about a quarter of their value. I should like to know whether a similar levy has been imposed on any other section of the community by the requisitioning of other commodities. On the information I have been able to obtain, I do not believe that such is the case. Recently I have asked several questions in the House about the requisitioning of these horses. Three weeks ago I asked:
whether there is any fixed maximum limit for the purchase of Army remounts; whether he can state the reason; and whether a similar limitation exists in respect of any other property or commodities which the War Office is commandeering at the present moment for various purposes?
I thought I had received quite a satisfactory answer. It was to the following effect:
The instructions to impressment officers prescribed a maximum price for horses, based on the prices at which the type required for Army service is normally obtainable. Owners who are not satisfied that the price tendered represents fair market value have the right to appeal to a county court judge. The instructions that have been issued regarding requisitioning generally are designed to secure that unduly expensive property shall, so far as possible, be avoided."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd October, 1939; col. 1800, Vol. 351.]
The instructions issued, I considered, were quite good, and if they had been carried out there would have been no trouble and nobody would have complained, but in some cases there was very little attempt to carry out the instructions. I would like again to emphasise these instructions. First, it is stated that the prices are to be based on the prices at which the type required for Army service is normally obtainable. That means the normal horse they usually had for the Army, and the normal price. Secondly, it is designed to secure that unduly expensive property should, so far as possible, be avoided.
These instructions have been absolutely violated by some of the impressment officers, that is to say, if they ever got them. One of these officers goes to one establishment where he must have known that the type normally required were unobtainable, as this establishment has been known for well over half a century for keeping the very highest class of horses and to which nobody would go who would not be ready to pay a very large sum for them. Naturally, the Army buyer should

have known that they would be, in the words of the Financial Secretary, unduly expensive. Therefore, I should like to know why this officer ever went there at all. I will quote one or two extracts from a letter which I received from this gentleman. He tells how the impressment officer and his assistant and a veterinary surgeon came to his establishment;
My son showed what the horses cost in the books and also their prices. I arranged to have the prices shown as I did in the last war, as then they commandeered 23, and I then applied to the Government for the difference in cost. We did not have to appeal, and I had a letter from the Government and received a cheque for practically the whole of the difference.
It is a very different thing during this war when they would have to go to the county court instead of getting the balance from the Government.
The impressment officer made a note that the horses were worth what we had bought them for, but he could not give more than £60 apiece for them.
Part of my question the other day related to the pressure that had been brought to bear on this gentleman, and the Minister for War said he was not aware that any pressure had been brought to bear upon him.
Some ten days ago an official of the War Office rang up my son from the War Office to say that we must not appeal, and that we would have no chance of getting anything. On this he was very insistent, saying that we were the only people applying. Therefore my son was very firm, and, after a considerable argument, said he must go on. The impressment officer rang up the other day to say he was told to ask us not to proceed with the case. We had to appear on Thursday, but we had a letter from the authorities asking us to agree to the adjournment of the case for a month as there were so many claims it was difficult to get them through.
That was after he had been told he was the only one who had applied. This- is interesting with regard to what happened in the last war:
In the last war I had to go with a Mr. Lawson to buy or commandeer horses in Yorkshire. We worked hard and bought all that was necessary without having to pay more than the required price, and it was not necessary to commandeer a single one. Commandeering horses at £60 apiece has taken our stock in trade at less than half cost price. In consequence our capital will be gone when we want to start again. The cost price of the 13 horses plus expenses amounts to £1,765. The fourteenth horse which we put down at a modest valuation of £120, was brother to one for which £1,000 was refused last year. This makes a total of £1.885 against which


we receive £60 apiece, making £804. The difference we are claiming from the Government is, therefore, £1,045.
This man, of course, is a dealer. This is his capital and his trade and the authorities have no business to take these horses from him at £60 apiece, especially when the orders from the War Office were to the effect that they were not to buy unduly expensive property.
I have had rather a fan mail about this since I took it up. I have had several letters, and no doubt a great many people will have noticed the letters which have appeared in the "Times" and in other papers. I will not weary the House with more than two or three cases. This is from a gentleman who has been the master of four packs of hounds. He is in rather a different situation from that of the dealer in horses. One day he was out and a remount officer called. He says:
He saw my wife and told her, that two horses would be required from me. I selected the two horses that I could well spare—a chestnut colt for which I had given £100, and a mare that I bought from Ireland for £100, both very high class horses, and one in the Book.
The first horse they selected was one for which he had given £275 at the end of last season, practically clean bred and one which had won a great deal in the show ring. The next one was a bay gelding in the book, a thoroughbred for which he gave £275 as a five-year old. This horse he considered quite good enough for the National Hunt. The next one was a horse which he had bought only last season for £300. The attitude of both purchasing officer and veterinary surgeon was extremely unpleasant during the whole proceedings. He said:
The veterinary surgeon appeared to take charge and the purchasing officer to fall in with all his suggestions and not the slightest attention was paid to anything I said. My wife and my stud groom are witnesses of this. Two of the horses were entirely unsuited by temperament for mounting in the yeomanry unit. The total I paid for the horses was £1,100 and I got a cheque for £300.
It may be said that he is better off than a great many others, and although he is very sore about it I gather from him that he is not going to take any action in the county court.
The next case is that of a dealer in Gloucestershire from whom 22 horses at £60 apiece were taken. They were all

high-class horses mostly bought in Ireland as four- or five-year olds and hon. Members will probably realise the time it takes and the cost before such horses are ready to hunt. He is rather a different type of dealer and buys young clean-bred horses mostly from Ireland, which take a year or two to train and break. These young, unbroken horses cost him on an average £102 each. Some of them he has to keep for a year, others for two years, and therefore they stand in his books for cost of keep, insurance, wages, etc., at a great deal more than £102. This is a case of another dealer who has been absolutely ruined by having his horses taken away from him at a cost of £60 each.
The important thing is to know why these officers have not obeyed the instructions that were given to them direct from the War Office. Instead of rectifying their error and returning the horses to the owners, the authorities seem to shrug their shoulders and take cover behind the Army Act, Section 113, which provides that the horse owners can appeal to the county court, which should have been unnecessary, as it was in the last war. Most of these owners never thought that they had any right of appeal, and they were not informed that they had by the officers, who may have been just as ignorant as themselves about it. I know of a great many civilians who are not conversant with the Army Act and a good many soldiers too who are not. The Minister has called to his aid the Army Act, but he drives a coach and four through the allowance regulations, which are laid down by Royal Warrant.
I asked a question on Tuesday, 10th October, of the Secretary of State for War, with regard to the taking over of privately-owned chargers of officers of the Household Cavalry. According to Remount Regulations cavalry officers were promised that their horses would be taken over by the Remount Department in the event of mobilisation, as provided for in the Allowance Regulations. The answer I received from my right hon. Friend was to the effect that in those regiments the maximum price for the most expensive charger privately-owned was £120. That is quite right. It is laid down in the allowance regulations. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:


It was recently decided not to pay more than £60 for any horse now being acquired, but no compulsion was put on any officer to sell his horse."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th October, 1939; col. 145, Vol. 352.]
This really sounds like breaking faith with these officers on the very occasion on which the allowance regulations were designed to operate. What I am mystified about is that these allowance regulations were issued under Royal Warrant, and it would take a supplementary Royal Warrant to alter them. So far as I know no supplementary Royal Warrant has been issued, and it looks as if the Minister has taken upon himself to alter a Royal Warrant. These officers of the Household Cavalry consider that they have been badly let down. They appear to have one advantage over the civilian inasmuch as they are not obliged to sell their horses, whereas the civilian is compelled to do so, and they can turn their horses out to grass and keep them cheaply until the war is over.
In regard to the question of values they are very hard to assess. A value is generally assessed on the value which similar types of animals have fetched at auction in the open market. There are, however, no auctions for the higher class of horses, but in regard to the lower-grade horses, the prices have been rising considerably owing to the motor car and petrol restriction. The question of value is dependent somewhat on whether the adjudicator of values is an optimist or a pessimist in regard to the war. If he is an optimist and he thinks the war will not last more than a year, then the horse is worth a great deal more than if he is a pessimist and he thinks the war will go on for three years. An important point is what these horses will fetch after the war when there will be a great dearth of horses and a great many purchasers. To quote an example of post-war prices in another commodity, a friend of mine told me about a car which he possessed during the last war. He could not sell it for love or money; so he laid it up. At the end of the war, when cars were very scarce and delivery could not be got for months, he sold the car for double what he had given for it originally. Some of my friends say that after the war nobody will have any money with which to buy horses. I would not say that. There will be many people who will make money out of the war, in spite of any Government regulations.

There never has been a war in which there have not been racketeers, and I cannot believe that there will not be some people who will make money out of this war.
In addition to the national market for our horses, there is another great and important market, and that is the international one. This country has always been and still is the Mecca for horses. Americans and others who have done well out of the war and have made their pile will come into the market here. As before, they will come to hunt here when peace is declared and will give high prices for their horses. People from the Continent will also come here to buy expensive horses. I have no doubt that when the war is over the horse will command a higher price than it did before the present war.
I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State for War on the way he has reorganised and perfected the British Army and also for his broadcast last Saturday, but in regard to the matter which I am raising to-night I should say that it is a scandal, and ought never to have been allowed to occur. It is an injustice and a hardship, and must be rectified and stopped. There has been some error somewhere, and somebody must be to blame for it. There has been too much of this business of people going about commandeering things, without any feelings in regard to the owner of the property, whether it be buildings or horses. Preserve us from the bureaucrat dictators and their minions. No one wants to be vindictive, but it seems to me that somebody should be put on the mat about this matter. On the posters we read:
Freedom is in peril, defend it with all your might.
I sometimes think that our freedom is in peril, not only from our enemies from without but from our bureaucrats from within. There are too many jacks-in-office. You find them in all Departments, not only amongst those who impress horses but those who impress hotels, schools, land and every other sort of commodity. They can be best described in the words of Shakespeare:
But man, proud man!
Drest in a little brief authority;
Most ignorant of what he's most assured;
His glassy essence, like an angry ape,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As make the angels weep.


I ask the Financial Secretary in all seriousness to see that the impressment of these high-class horses, from men whose living it is to breed and train them and who will be ruined if this goes on, is stopped, and that he will represent to the Secretary of State for War the fact that something must be done to alter the present procedure and see that the orders are carried out.

8.41 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend should have painted in such glowing colours the picture of the state of affairs in the country districts where horses for the Army have been bought. Obviously we cannot set up an organisation to provide for the Government several thousands of horses without there being considerable hardship in many cases, and without the owners, or some of the owners, of the horses feeling that they have a grievance. When the hon. and gallant Member gave notice that he was going to raise this question I took steps to call for a report from the various districts where these horses have been bought to find out what was the extent of the discontent which the hon. and gallant Member alleges to exist. He will, of course, make the obvious retort that the sources from which I get my information are biased and that they represent the other interested party. At any rate, it is significant that these reports are all very much on the same lines, and that most of the district remount officers, who have given me such information as they have been able to obtain, are surprisingly unanimous in saying that although the purchase of horses for the Army has in many cases required the owners to part with horses of value and of which they are very fond, yet in the great majority of cases the owners have responded to the situation and realised that the needs of the country are paramount, and, although not willingly, have philosophically accepted the situation.
The hon. and gallant Member described the process of buying these horses as a capital levy. I have as yet had no experience of a capital levy, nor has he, and I have yet to learn that when a capital levy is imposed the individual whose capital is affected has a right of appeal to a court of justice. I think the hon. and gallant Member's complaint was chiefly that the

purchase and impressment of horses had been carried out in many cases contrary to the instructions issued by the War Office. I can find no evidence to that effect. Instructions were issued that the personal interests of the owners were to be considered as far as possible. Officers were not to take a horse from the one-horse owner whose livelihood depended upon it. They were instructed to avoid purchasing mares fit for breeding, and generally they were instructed to avoid as far as possible taking high-class blood horses. What the hon. and gallant Member seems to have forgotten is that the horses had to be purchased within a short space of time and that of necessity resort had to be had to methods which would not have been necessary had we had more time in which to buy horses. Within a given area a certain number of horses had to be produced, and I think it was inevitable that where a man was having a difficulty in producing his quota of horses he naturally had to purchase horses of a better class and type than perhaps he would have done had he had more time at his disposal. The hon. and gallant Member cited a case which he did not mention by name, but which I easily recognise, and he will forgive me if I do not deal in detail with the case because it is sub judice.

Sir E. Makins: Only on the question of value.

Sir V. Warrender: The whole case is sub judice. May I say this in general, that it really cannot be upheld to-day that horses bought before the war can be said to have the same value now that war has broken out, nor can it be said that the horse dealer is the only man in business who is seeing his stock seriously depreciating in value as a result of the war. We do not seek to impose any harshness or injustice upon these people. They have, after all, a right of appeal to the county court judge, and if they can establish their case they can get monetary compensation. The hon. and gallant Member suggested that owners have not been told that they had a right of appeal to the court. It may have happened in some cases that the impressment officers omitted to tell the owners that they had this right of appeal, but the hon. and gallant Member may take it from me, and I can give him the assurance, that in the vast


majority of these transactions prices were agreed upon with the owners and that impressment was resorted to in a very small number of cases. Therefore, it is to be assumed that owners who agreed to the price at which their horses were taken did so of their own free will and were not interested in going to a court of appeal. The hon. and gallant Member raised a question as to the prices paid for privately-owned chargers of officers in the Army, and asked why the limit of £60 was placed upon these horses when, according to the Army Act, the officers were entitled to £120.

Sir E. Makins: Under the Allowance Regulations.

Sir V. Warrender: I do not think it was unfair to these officers to put them in the same position as the general public; in fact, I think it would have been difficult to defend paying an officer £120 as a maximum for his charger when we were taking horses from private individuals at a maximum of £60. It must not be forgotten that where chargers were bought from officers boards were set up to adjudicate on an agreed price with the officers, and that the board consisted in some cases of officers of the same unit as the horses concerned. My information is that in practically every case a price was agreed upon which the officer holding the horse was willing to accept, and that no difficulty has been experienced. In fact, I am at a loss to understand the grievance to which the hon. and gallant Member was referring, because not only were the prices agreed upon, as they have to be under the regulations, but they have been confirmed since as being just and correct. It must not be forgotten that there was no compulsion on any of the officers to sell their chargers.

Sir Joseph Lamb: My hon. Friend says that there is no compulsion on the officers to sell these horses. Why was not the same treatment given to the dealers? They were compelled to sell.

Sir V. Warrender: I think the officer who is in service at the time is entitled to some treatment of that kind. To begin with, he has no right of appeal to the county court, and that being so, it is only justice to give him the option of retaining his horse if he is unwilling to sell.

Sir J. Lamb: Surely, my hon. Friend does not contend that if a man is under no compulsion to sell his horse, he need go to the county court? He can retain the horse if he wishes. In the case of the dealer, it is the man's capital that is wanted. In the case of the officer, it is simply something for which the officer gets the advantage.

Sir V. Warrender: I have said that where there is compulsion, the individual is given the right to appeal to the county court. Where there is no compulsion—

Sir J. Lamb: He does not want it.

Sir V. Warrender: As my hon. Friend says, he does not want it, but I do not think one can ask that an officer owning a charger should have it both ways. It is obvious that under no system could one purchase a large number of horses without causing a certain amount of heart burning, and although my hon. and gallant Friend said that he quoted only a few cases, I do not think he can say that he has had a large number of cases submitted to him. I do not think it can be said that the officers, who had a difficult task to perform in a very short period of time, have carried out that task without consideration for individuals. I do not think that the owners of high-class horses in present conditions can lay claim to the same price for those horses as they might have expected to get had there been no war. I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that if and when further horses have to be purchased, we shall endeavour to follow the same principles as we have in the past, to take what we need, but with the minimum of inconvenience to the private individual. Naturally, if there is any case of particular hardship, my right hon. Friend or I will be only too willing to receive any representations which my hon. and gallant Friend or any other hon. Member may make, but I cannot accept the suggestion which was contained in the quotation with which my hon. and gallant Friend concluded his speech that there has been any drastic, fantastic, bureaucratic bullying of individuals. Naturally, there have been hard cases, but unfortunately, the owners of horseflesh are not the only people who have suffered as a result of the outbreak of war.

Sir E. Makins: Would my hon. Friend say that the country is properly quartered for horses? The officers have first of all


combed out the Shires, where all the valuable horses are, and they have not been near a great many other places. I know of one county, having a great many horses, where the officers have never been. One hon. Member has told me that his hunt in the North wanted to sell all the hunt horses—very good, sound horses, for which they had given about £100 apiece—and that the officers have never been near them. There is one point I would like to ask with regard to the allowance Regulations. Are they not altered by Royal Warrant?

Sir V. Warrender: My hon. and gallant Friend is now asking me to inflict an injustice of which he has been complaining on a wider area of the country. I know the point he has in mind, and if and when we require more horses, we shall cover more ground; but he will readily realise that in the time limits within which the horses had to be bought, it was impossible to cast the net over as wide an area as we might have wished. Naturally the tendency was to go where it was known that the horses were quickly obtainable. With regard to the other point which my hon. and gallant Friend has raised, perhaps he will allow me to give him that information later on. I have not got it here at the moment.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I drew the attention of the Minister recently to a case which I think was worthy of more attention than it has received. The case is one in which impressment took place and nine horses were appropriated at once. It may be that those horses were of the best type for the purpose for which they were required. It may have been thought that since there were nine horses available at this place it was better to take the nine than to travel to eight other places to get one horse in each place. But I understand that the horses taken from this place, the name of which is well known in the Department by now, were, on the basis of pre-war prices—and I do not deny that there may have been depreciation since the war started—worth anywhere up to £200 each. The price offered was £60 each and the owner was left to apply to the county court for anything over and above that £60 to which he might feel himself entitled. Apparently £120 is the

maximum sum which one may get even in the county court and by following the normal procedure.
The hon. Gentleman said that he would be very sorry if extremely well-bred horses were taken for this purpose when other horses were available. One of the nine horses referred to in the question which I put to the Secretary of State for War was the progeny of a Derby winner, a St. Leger winner, and a Two Thousand Guineas winner. The owner's estimate of the original price paid, plus the cost of training and feeding, was round about £250. I doubt very much whether the value of that horse has depreciated 25 per cent. but that would still leave the horse worth about £200, and the actual sum paid for it was £60. It may be that the county court judge in his wisdom will feel that in this case the maximum price under the arrangement of the Department should be paid, but a second question arises—whether or not these nine horses were of the type required by the War Department. I understand that the type of horse referred to in this case is one which is bred for special purposes. There is an annual sale, advertisements of which are broadcast in Ireland and throughout Great Britain, and good prices are fetched by these horses because of their peculiar breed. I am led to believe that a very well-bred horse is not the sort which the War Office requires. Yet the men who were sent out to impress these horses, without asking any questions of the manager of the stud or seeking to acquire any knowledge about the breed or type of the horses, just appropriated them and that was the end of it. I can readily understand that when they are in a hurry, when they must have the horses and have them quickly, it is natural that they should go where they know a large number of horses are available and appropriate them at once, and the future must take care of the price, but I suggest that it is fairly uneconomic, from the War Office point of view, first of all to take horses that are unfit or unsuited for the work they are called upon to do, and, secondly, that it is unfair to the owner who has bred a peculiar kind of horse for a totally different purpose from that to which the War Office wish to put them.
The case that I quoted is, I think, a classic example of the haphazard methods employed by these persons who were en-


gaged by the War Office to secure for them the appropriate number of the right type of horse. I do not know these individuals, and I do not know whether they had the appropriate training or whether they were quite capable of deciding which was or which was not the right type of horse, but I am certain that, if the county court judge is warned of the compensation for emergency action whereby, if the State takes over any commodities, any appreciated value since the war broke out is not to be taken into consideration when compensation is paid, and if the opposite happens in these cases, the War Office will be called upon to pay sums far in excess of their maximum price of £120. I wish to lodge no complaint about what has happened, but to utter perhaps a warning of what ought to happen in the future. First of all, if the men who are appointed to buy these horses for the War Office are men with knowledge of the value of horses and of the utility of the particular kind of horses required, the questions which have already arisen, those referred to prior to my entry into the House, and the particular case that I have in mind would not have happened and will not happen in the future. There is a large number of horse trainers in the country who are out of work, and I should imagine they are the right type of people to be employed by the War Office for this purpose. Not only would it avoid difficulties in future, but it would ensure that the War Office would get the right type of horse at the right price and that there would be fewer complaints than there have been so far.

Mr. A. Edwards: Before the Minister replies, may I—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): I understand that the hon. Member wants to speak on the question of Supply, but he cannot speak now and then as well.

Mr. Edwards: I wanted merely to ask a question.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Even questions cannot be answered now, as the Minister has already spoken.

BOFORS GUN-MOUNTINGS (CONTRACT).

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: I wish to refer once again to a matter which I brought up in debate

both on 8th June and 21st September, and I do so for two reasons. It is, first of all, a matter of personal explanation, as I wish to support the statement that I have made with figures, and, secondly, it is a matter, as I think, of very great public importance. I refer to the remarks which I made on both those occasions with regard to a sub-contract for the Bofors gun-mountings. May I briefly restate the story as I told it on 8th June? I referred then to the fact that a manufacturer of my acquaintance had been asked to quote a sub-contractor for the manufacture of certain mountings, and he had gone into the tender very carefully and put in his price. He was surprised when, the next morning, the telephone bell rang and an official, the managing director or some other responsible person, at the other end told him that his offer was of no use, to which he replied, "That is very disappointing, because we have been into it in great detail, and really we have not overloaded it." Voice from the other end, "Overloaded it? You are 50 per cent. too cheap." To cut a long story short, he was told that in fact he must increase his price, as it was absurd to place an order at that price. If he put in a tender at an increased price, he would receive the order in due course.
In winding up the Debate on 8th June the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster likened me to a well-known Kipling character called Tomlinson, who always spoke from hearsay, who never had any facts or experience of his own, and who was never able to substantiate anything he said. I am not accustomed to be questioned as to the veracity of my statements in my own business, and I want to make it clear that everything said in that Debate has been more than substantiated by evidence which has since been produced. In fact, mine was rather an under- than an overstatement because the first price put in by the sub-contractor was £72 and when he re-tendered it was £148 14s. The story, as I understand it, appears to be this. A well-known firm of manufacturers was given the responsibility to act as agents by the Government for the manufacture of this Bofors gun. In due course, they invited tenders from firm A, which I do not know, for the particular parts they wished to have sub-contracted. In due


course, firm A quoted a price of £220 for this mounting. They then said that if they had a quantity the price would be reduced to £190, and subsequently they stated that they hoped to reduce it to £180. That was on 19th January, 1939.
On 6th February, as a result of an invitation to quote, by the same agents who were responsible for the whole of the manufacture of this gun, firm B, who are my acquaintances, put in a quotation of £72. It then appears that the agents made representations to firm B that they must have made a mistake and left things out, because the figures, in their opinion, were so utterly different from those they had had from firm A. To cut a long story short, because I do not know all the details, firm B eventually put in a figure of £148 14s. There was only a fortnight between these two quotations. I only wish to make one comment for the benefit of hon. Members who are not engineers. This business of wangling specifications when you re-tender is the oldest one known to the trade, and it is one of the standard ways of getting round quoted prices.
I would like to ask the Minister several questions, which I hope he will see fit to answer to-night. Why was it really necessary to appoint a firm which was entirely inexperienced as far as gun production goes as agents for the whole production of this gun? Does that firm of agents quote the War Office for their supplies, or are they left to arrive at a satisfactory price to suit themselves? Presuming the firm of agents are capable people, I am surely entitled to assume that the specifications which they sent to firm B were identical with those they originally sent to firm A. From that I want to know why it was, when they received the price of firm B, that they were in such a great hurry to persuade firm B to put their price up. As an ordinary commercial man I might see that these people were wrong in their price, but allow the matter to take its course, and if I found at the end of the contract that they were in a hole, I would do what I could to help them out reasonably.
But that, from the report of the conversations which took place, is not what happened at all. The agents were only too anxious immediately to tell firm B,

"Your price is utterly ridiculous; put it up and we will give you an order. "They put it up to some effect, not by 50 per cent., but by 100 per cent., and even then they were some 50 per cent. below what firm A had quoted in the first instance. For the enlightenment of those Members of the House who are not engineers I say that it is utterly impossible, in my opinion as an engineer, for anybody in the case of an article of this size to make more than a 25 or 30 per cent. error. If they are capable of making a greater error they ought not to have been asked to quote, they are incapable people, and if they were incapable then the agents are incapable as well and ought not to have been appointed agents. If they are capable, then there is something very funny going on with regard to price adjustments. I understand, as indeed the sub-contractor states, that there was considerable modification, but if the specification as first sent to A was the one sent to B why was it necessary to say to B," Your price is wrong and you must put it up"? It seems a most irregular proceeding and quite contrary to the public interest.
I raised this matter on 8th June, when I was somewhat laughed at by the House for not producing names. I assisted the Minister as far as I could, but I endeavoured to explain that it is not fair to throw names across the Floor of the House because of the appalling result it has upon a man's business, and I declined to do so. But manufacturer B, as I stated on 21st September, acted in the public interest in coming forward and seeing the Minister himself. I want to know why, in view of the fact that there was only one agent and manufacturer responsible for the whole production of this gun, it has taken more than three months in order to get this matter properly ventilated. It seems to require a good deal of explanation from the Minister. I say at once, and I think he will bear me out, that so far from agreeing with me that my statement was correct, the Minister has all along taken the line that my statements are exaggerated, and though not without foundation entirely are not in accordance with what has been stated by the manufacturer. Therefore, I should like to refer to a correspondence I have had with the manufacturer. I wrote on 5th October to


ask him whether he was, in fact, satisfied with his prices and what happened. I wrote
It appears that on 6th February you quoted the price £72. I understood from you that at the time you quoted you were satisfied that this price was quite sufficient to cover you, with a reasonable profit. Am I correct? Subsequently, on 21st February, you submitted a revised quotation of £148 14s., which covered other certain requirements not included in the original offer. It would appear to me, and I shall be glad if you will let me know whether I am right or not, that there was a substantial difference between the new specification and the one originally submitted.
The manufacturer replied:
Between those two quotations there were a number of modifications made and a good deal of material"—
Material, I would point out—
was added on to the original list.
That, of course, is the old game. Hence the difference in price. But that did not utterly satisfy me and I wrote:
Am I to understand that you were satis-lied, as you told me, with the £72 for the specification as first presented? I appreciate what you say about the revised price and the different specification.
The answer was, laconically, "Yes." I have nothing to add to what I have said before. I hope the Minister will see fit to explain the various points I have raised on this matter, which seems to be one of very great public importance.

9.15 p.m.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Burgin): I am sure that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) will at once agree that, from the first moment when he made allegations of excessive price or of profiteering, I have endeavoured in every case to investigate the different instances he brought to my notice. I have here a pile of correspondence which I have had the pleasure of having with him. He has occasionally brought other hon. Members with him, and I have done my level best to investigate. The short answer to the allegations which the hon. Member makes to-night is that the events to which he refers did not happen. I shall ask the patience of the House in giving the whole of the facts, as I have taken the trouble to investigate them. I think the House would like to know, at the outset, that the armament manufacturer against whom this allegation of charging an excessive price is made is none other than Lord Nuffield; and he would be a bold

man in this House or in this country who would make an allegation of profiteering against Lord Nuffield.
Let me go into the facts. The hon. Member for Ipswich is right: it would have been wrong, in the public Debate when he first called attention to this matter, to mention names, and I entirely agree. I never asked him for the names; that is certain. He is also right in saying that when it was ascertained that we were talking about the Bofors gun—there was some little dispute as to whether it was anti-tank or anti-aircraft, but it was subsequently identified as being an antiaircraft gun—and when that fact was established it was easy for me, from my official records, to determine that there was only one manufacturer outside the Royal Ordnance Factories who was making this particular type of gun or gun-mounting. The main contractor could then easily be ascertained. It is not so easy, when you have a main contractor who sub-contracts on a very large scale, to identify the sub-contractor.
There the hon. Member for Ipswich was helpful. He induced his friend the subcontractor to place himself in communication with me, and the sub-contractor came to my room in the House of Commons and told me the story. He did not confirm what the hon. Member for Ipswich had said in the House. I saw him in the presence of a civil servant. At the request of the sub-contractor no note was taken of the interview. Correspondence took place between me and the sub-contractor the same night and the following day. What the sub-contractor said was that the hon. Member for Ipswich had made use in the House of Commons of a chance conversation and that he had not accurately stated what, the sub-contractor himself would have said; and before—

Mr. Garro Jones: In what respect?

Mr. Burgin: Let me tell my own story first. Before making any allegation of any kind against the main contractor the sub-contractor asked leave to have the whole of his costs rechecked by his own costings department. I have a letter from him to that effect. The sub-contractor asked expressly, not only that his name should never be mentioned, but that nothing further should take place inside or outside the House until he had himself made this rechecking. I have not yet heard from him that he has made


that rechecking. In the interval, as I now knew the name of the subcontractor, I made my own inquiry. Without revealing the sub-contractor's name—because I gave my word of honour that there should be no question of his being victimised or blacklisted, or anything of the kind, and that under no circumstances was his name to be disclosed —I sent for the managing director of the Nuffield Mechanisation Company. Lord Nuffield was the only effective shareholder at the time. The company has now changed hands and is a subsidiary, I believe, of Morris Motors. I sent for the managing director and I said to him, "I want to look through your lists and find someone who quoted approximately £72 for a particular Bofors mounting and who makes the allegation that, on that quotation being received by you, you told him to put up his price by 50 per cent. as a condition precedent of having an order." An investigation took place in the books and papers of the Nuffield Mechanisation Company, and subsequent interviews took place between the managing director of the Nuffield Mechanisation Company and my officials at the Ministry of Supply.
As a result of those investigations, I wrote to the hon. Member for Ipswich and set out the facts as I had ascertained them. What are they? They are these: In the early part of 1939 all the Royal Ordnance Factories were working to capacity. The Bofors anti-aircraft gun is a gun for dealing with low-flying aircraft. It is a gun of foreign invention and it was something quite new to this country. It was a question of making it quickly and in large numbers. What is the practice adopted by the supply organisation of the country? They say, rather than further milk the skilled staff of Woolwich, secure one of the large industrial organisations in the country and obtain their assistance. So Austin's, Morris's, Humber, Hillman, Stewart and Lloyds—these big industrial concerns that have buildings, capital, tools, skilled labour, machinery and management—are asked each in turn to take a factory and manage it on agency terms. There is no question of cost or price, but they are to secure the buildings, equip them, supply the staff, control the management and act in the name of the Government as agents supplying the technical elements. No greater source of engineering capacity exists in the country

than Lord Nuffield with his immense organisation. The hon. Member for Ipswich sneers—

Mr. Stokes: I did not sneer.

Mr. Burgin: I beg the hon. Member's pardon.

Mr. Stokes: I regard that as an overstatement of the case. Lord Nuffield is a very eminent man and a very capable motor-car manufacturer, but I do not think Lord Nuffield would over-state himself as the right hon. Gentleman has just done.

Mr. Burgin: I thought it would be agreed that Lord Nuffield was capable of putting his hand to as much engineering skill as any other engineer in the country. In terms of aircraft or of armament stores, Lord Nuffield's companies figure amongst the best of the deliveries that the Ministry for which I am speaking enjoys at this moment. Lord Nuffield's company, the Nuffield Mechanisation Company, accordingly provided the building, equipped it, selected the staff and provided the management skill. They have no interest whatever in the price at which any particular subcontractor quotes, and therefore there is no motive and no inducement whatsoever to profiteer. Immediately the facts are examined, there is found to be no truth in the suggestion of profiteering in ringing up a sub-contractor and saying, "Your price is so ridiculously low and you must put it up."

Mr. Stokes: I have not made any accusation against Lord Nuffield. I merely said that firm A quoted a price and firm B quoted another, and the latter were then told by the Nuffield interest to put up their price. I say that is not in the public interest, and it is not the way business should be transacted in order to get the best price out of the manufacturer. He should have been left to continue and do the work, and, if he was found to go down the drain in the process, the Government would come to his aid and help him out.

Mr. Burgin: The hon. Member is not doing himself justice. The allegation has varied since it was first made in June. There was then no question of subcontractor A at all. All those facts were unknown to the hon. Member. The allegation was that a sub-contractor had


been told by the main contractor to put his price up by 50 per cent. I have taken a great deal of trouble to go to the roots of all this because I think there is no more serious charge than a charge of profiteering. I have made it clear to all the contractors that, if there is a charge of profiteering proved, I am the very first one to hear of it, because my punishment would be severe. When you make a charge of profiteering you have three duties, one to the public, to investigate it to the full, to the man who makes it, to see that every fact that he brings out is investigated, and to the man against whom it is made, to see if there is any shred of foundation for it. Some of the feelings of the hon. Member occasionally go a long way. In one of his letters he said he thought every member of the armament ring ought to be strung up to a lamp-post.

Mr. Stokes: As a matter of fact. I did not say anything of the sort. What I said was that I would like to wring the neck of the armament firms in the ring. I do not withdraw that for a moment. I still feel like that.

Mr. Burgin: If the hon. Member thinks I have paraphrased his observation, I will leave him his own. It conveys, I think, the impression that I wanted to make. But I want to get back to this. The, Nuffield Mechanisation Company have no interest or inducement in altering the: price. Their one inducement is to deliver the effective article in accordance with the date they have given in their contract for delivery. One experience which every manufacturer of importance has had is that he has been let down by a sub-contractor not understanding the job that he undertakes. I doubt whether there is any manufacturer of size who has not had that experience. The Nuffield Mechanisation Company were confronted with two specifications for identically the same thing, one by a very well-known company, a household word, who have not only quoted £200 odd for this particular mounting, but have delivered mountings in accordance with their contract, and whose contract is open as any others, to full costing by the Department. That contractor A happened to be someone who would be the least likely to want to incur the displeasure of the Nuffield organisation. They have been contractors on a very large scale; they have put up one of the

largest armament factories in the country, from which this nation is deriving immense benefit. They are, in short, a first-class firm, with first-class costing capacity, and with a first-class record, and they have carried out that record in the deliveries that they have made. [Interruption.]I am not proposing to mention names.

Mr. Gallacher: And they made first-class profits.

Mr. Burgin: There is no question of first-class profits arising. The Nuffield Company, knowing that for large deliveries and for expansion on a big scale they are bound to have sub-contractors, have sub-contractors on a very large scale. For these particular mountings they had sub-contractor A, who quoted something over the £200—the actual figure was in the hon. Member's letter.

Mr. Stokes: £220, and £190 for the other.

Mr. Gallacher: For one—for doing a number, £180.

Mr. Burgin: That is not quite right. The price quoted was a margin between £190 and £220. It was an estimate, before the work was begun. When they had delivered a number of these heavy gun-mountings—which are something which they are not accustomed to make; something they had never made in peace-time —they said that they thought that the ultimate price at which they would invoice them to the Government would be nearer £190 than £220, and that it might go down as low as £180. As against subcontractor A, with £220 and a possible fall to £190, the Nuffield Company received from a firm of ironpmasters, who had never been engaged in armaments at all, a price of £72. The telephone conversation, so far from being "You must put up your price by 50 per cent.," was an invitation to come and talk the matter over, as it was apparent, from a comparison of a price of £72 by an inexperienced firm and of £220 by an experienced firm, either that one was overcharging or that the other had made a grotesque mistake; and it is no use trying to hold a contractor to an absurd mistake. In connection with the War Office there have been cases where a man has put in a ridiculous tender and the Department has held him to the tender; and they have had nothing


but abuse ever since. In this case subcontractor B was sent for, and he was asked, "Is it not clear that you have left a lot out?" To the credit of B, he admitted that he had left a lot out; that he had misunderstood the work involved, and had failed to make due account for material and processes.

Mr. Garro Jones: If it was in the specification, how could he have failed to take it into account?

Mr. Burgin: He did not read the specification correctly. Sub-contractor B recognised that there was a great deal in the work, which he had contracted to do at £72, which found no place in his costings. He was unfamiliar with the work, he was entirely inexperienced in what it involved, and he had quoted something which it was impossible for him to adhere to. Some modifications were made in the specification, but these were nothing like enough to account for the difference. The real difference lay in the recognition by sub-contractor B that there was something which he had not charged for.

Mr. Gallacher: Will you tell me one thing?

Mr. Burgin: Not now. I am not interested in sub-contractor A or in subcontractor B, but I am vitally interested in the Bofors gun—and if the House knew all the facts they would want more of these guns. I have no doubt that it is entirely wrong for a main contractor, like the Nuffield Company, to allow a subcontractor to quote an impossible price. It will only mean disappointment. The whole assembly line will come to an end because that particulae sub-contractor could not deliver on the day. In point of fact what has happened? Contractor A has delivered; contractor B has not. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] That really is not my responsibility. The Nuffield firm has power to test its own sub-contractors. We are wanting to broaden the basis of manufacture, and have a great many firms taught, and if by reason of this experience this new big firm of ironmasters in the Midlands is enabled to be added to these civilian firms that can swing over to armament manufacture, the country will be the better for it. But the idea that there is anything wrong in calling a man's attention to the

fact that his costing seems to show that he has made a mistake and has left something out is a very wrong one.

Mr. Stokes: Two hundred per cent.

Mr. Burgin: I am not interested in the percentage at the moment. I have the power to cost these contracts, but you do not put in a costing until there has been a delivery and there is something to cost. Firm A has delivered some and I can cost them. Firm B has not yet delivered at all, and I have no power to cost them, but I have the power to cost when delivery is made.

Mr. Logan: Mr. Logan rose—

Mr. Burgin: Let me finish my own story, after which I shall be glad to give way to hon. Members who want to ask questions.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask one.

Mr. Burgin: The hon. Member's question will be so much the better if he listens first. I want to tell hon. Members that, apart from this particular Nuffield organisation, where there is an absolute flat denial that the contractor was ever told to increase his price by a particular figure at all, but where, I claim, in accordance with the engineering practice, the attention of the sub-contractor was called to the fact that his tender was ludicrous—I want to say apart from that —and my own Ministry have placed orders for some £110,000,000 since the 3rd September—we should adopt exactly this practice, if somebody put in a tender, to show that, if they were completely unaware of the task that they were to carry out, we should have no faith in it being carried out and we should send for the works manager or a director, and say, "Go over these costs carefully and see whether you have not made a mistake." That was exactly what happened in this case, and when sub-contractor B, at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Ipswich came to see me, which he did on the 31st July, he wrote to me on the 1st August this letter:
I should like to thank you for giving me so much of your valuable time. I hope you were interested in what I was able to tell you. I much appreciate your promise to keep this matter confidential. I should be obliged if you would let me have a copy of any note your Secretary may have made in the conversations for my files. If there


is anything I can do to assist, I shall be very happy to do it. I shall be looking through our original estimates next week when the member of my staff returns from his holiday and will write to you again.
I wrote back:
Thank you for your private and confidential letter. I was glad to have the chance of a talk with you, and I look forward to hearing from you again after the member of your staff has returned from holiday. At my express direction no written note of any kind was made of your talk with us, and if anything at any time goes on the file, it will be a short memorandum dictated by myself. I should like you to feel that this question of excessive costs in any article of supply is a matter of very great interest to myself and advisers, and I should welcome any information that from time to time you may feel able to bring to my notice.
There is an exchange of letters by subcontractor "B," who asks for an opportunity of checking these costs before anything further is done in that matter. From that moment to this that sub-contractor has not made any further communication and the House may draw its own conclusion.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Logan: I understand from the Minister that the original quotation was for £72 from sub-contractor B. It was intimated to him that the Minister would like to see him. He came along and he was interviewed, and as a result he sent in an estimate of £148. What I am anxious to know is this: if in the first place he was wrong in his estimate, did he make any improvement in his new estimate, and did he deliver the goods at the new price of £148?

Mr. Burgin: Whether it was the subcontractor's fault or whether there has been difficulty in estimating I do not want to make heavy weather about it. In fact sub-contractor B has not yet made that delivery. As far as I know he rechecked the costs. He satisfied himself that a good deal had been left out in the original estimate and he doubled the figure. I think it would be fair to him to say that he would feel that that figure would give him a profit. It would be fair also to say that he said to himself, "It will come out in the wash after there has been delivers and we have been able to check it."

Mr. Logan: I do not want to make any charges but I should like to have a further explanation in regard to the £72. Having

given the further estimate, which was £76 in excess of the original estimate, I take it that that estimate was accepted, that there has been no delivery and no complaint about an estimate of £76 above the original estimate.

Mr. Stokes: May I put this question to the Minister? From beginning to end is he aware that the sub-contractor has been kept informed of what I have been saying, and despite interviews and correspondence there has been no vestige of a denial but rather a confirmation that the telephone conversation as reported by me in this House is correct.

Mr. Burgin: How can I answer a question of that kind? The sub-contractor, in response to a request from the hon. Member for Ipswich, comes to see me and he tells me that the hon. Member for Ipswich spoke without his authority. That is what the sub-contractor said to me.

Mr. Stokes: That is not the point.

Mr. Burgin: It is.

Mr. Garro Jones: Be honest about it, for Heaven's sake.

Mr. Magnay: Who is the complainant, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) or sub-contractor B? I understand that sub-contractor B makes a mistake, and the explanation as given by the Minister is to many of us complete. How can the hon. Member for Ipswich now try to justify himself, in view of the statement made to the Minister by sub-contractor B?

Mr. Gallacher: There is one point which puzzles me. The Nuffield Trust send for sub-contractor B and advise him in connection with the specification, and as a result of the advice given by the Nuffield Trust in connection with the specification this inexperienced firm quoted £148. This was accepted by the Nuffield people because on their advice it was reasonable. How then does it come about that the Nuffield Trust have accepted a quotation of £220 from a very experienced firm?

Mr. Burgin: I will tell the hon. Member. The Nuffield Company are agents for the Government, producing a complete article. The Nuffield Company make a large part of it themselves through subcontractor A. This particular mounting is sub-contracted. Having a price with


which they are perfectly content, from a firm they know they can rely upon and from whom they know they will get contract delivery, at a price varying between £190 and £220—

Mr. Gallacher: From this experienced firm?

Mr. Burgin: —An experienced firm— when they got a price of £72, a difference of one-third, they said: "This must be inexperience; come to see us." The firm goes to see them, inexperienced if you like, but a very well-known firm, a big firm of iron masters and colliery owners, very well known to a great many people in this country. They say, "Thank you. We realise that there was a lot more in it than we thought. We realise that our price is too low"—and they quote double.

Mr. Garro Jones: On a different specification.

Mr. Burgin: On a different specification and one, as I have said, which does not justify the difference. I have it on the authority of the Director-General of Munitions Productions that the changes in the specifications are not such as to justify a difference in price between £70 and £140, and I have told the House that the manufacturer realised that there was more in the manufacturing process for which he had quoted than he had at first understood. It is not the business of the Nuffield Company to spoon-feed sub-contractors. If a sub-contractor thinks he can deliver at £148 and the Nuffield Company think that their price of £180 is the proper price, that is the sub-contractor's business. It is not the business of the Nuffield Company. But all this will come out in prices when there have been deliveries and when my costings scheme can trace the articles back. The proof that there is something not quite satisfactory as regards the B company seems to be shown by the fact that there has not yet been delivery.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Markham: It is evident that the crux of the whole matter is what is the fair price for this equipment, and the test which may be applied is the costings price of the equipment as manufactured in Royal Ordnance factories.

Mr. Stokes: Woolwich.

Mr. Markham: I prefer not to give the place for obvious reasons, but I ask whether the Minister can give us the comparative cost of this equipment as it is made in the State factories under expert supervision and say whether the price compares favourably or unfavourably with the Nuffield Company. [Interruption.]Is it suggested by hon. Members opposite that a Royal Ordnance factory is less efficient than the Nuffield people? For years past hon. Members opposite who represent dockyard areas and other areas with Royal Ordnance factories have strongly attacked the Government for not giving more work to these areas, urging that it can be done cheaper and more efficiently under Government control than under private control. Here we have an acid test as to whether the price that is charged by the Nuffield Company is a reasonable one or not. It seems to me that sub-contractor B was an ignoramus in this particular type of work. The Minister, who is loyal to War Office contractors, said that it was a big firm, but everyone who has any experience in these matters will understand that you must expect mistakes of no little magnitude if inexperienced contractors are given work they have never done before. That is what happened here. I wish the Minister had been able to expose this firm, and I wish, incidentally, that he had said rather more about those who are making what is obviously a most unjust allegation against the Government.

Mr. Stokes: May I answer the hon. Member?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot carry on the Debate with constant interruptions.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. A. Edwards: I should like to say this for the Minister of Supply. Having been connected with this particular problem from the beginning, I have felt from the outset that the right hon. Gentleman is just as concerned as we are about stamping out profiteering. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was determined to get to the bottom of it, and I think that he has honestly tried to do so; but I do not agree with his conclusions. The hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Markham) has dealt with the question of a comparison with the ordnance factory. It so happens that yesterday I was talking to a business man who was supplying the Minister of Supply


with certain commodities at 30s. a hundred. He has permission to supply other people at 36s. a hundred. A week or two ago he received an inquiry for 19,000 of these articles and he quoted 36s. a hundred. He got the order and delivery instructions, and the goods had to be delivered to an ordnance factory, with which the hon. Member for South Nottingham wants to have a comparison with regard to costs. There was a profit to be got, and possibly the price would be at least 40s. or 45s. The Minister is able to buy these things at 30s. a hundred. I do not understand how the ordnance factory has the right to purchase on that basis, because I understood that the Minister had control. If the ordnance factory buys on that basis, how would it be a fair test to make a comparison with such a factory? The hon. Member for South Nottingham must not get so indignant when he has listened to only a small part of the case.
When this matter was first raised, I said that if my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) was not right in what he was saying, he ought to be exposed in the House, but that if he was telling the truth, then the Minister had a very great responsibility. When the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was speaking on the first occasion on which the matter was raised, he referred to my hon. Friend as a man who talked about things that he got from hearsay, but never had any proof. It is very unfair of Ministers to answer charges of this sort in that way, when nobody will give the House the names or the facts. To-night the Minister has preferred not to mention certain names, as also has the hon. Member for South Nottingham.

Mr. Markham: Surely, that should not be raised against one? It is in the national interests that certain facts should be withheld from the House. If the hon. Member is impugning my honesty, then I will say at once that I can give him, outside the House, the fullest details, such as one could not give in the House at the present time. The reason one keeps quiet on these matters is that one realises that certain information would be very helpful to the enemy in present circumstances.

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Member has confirmed the point I was making. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich had

the same reason for not mentioning names, but the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said some very rude things about him and sneered at him for not disclosing names. There was on that occasion an uproar in the House for a minute or two because my hon. Friend would not mention names, precisely for that reason. I think the House owes an apology to my hon. Friend on that score. Then he said with a grand gesture, "I must leave the House to be the judge of the matter." Well, one thing has been established to-night. Let us be fair. What my hon. Friend said was exactly the fact. There may be an explanation of it, but the fact is that a firm was asked to quote on a specification and they quoted £72 and they were told it was not enough. Ultimately the firm quoted a price double that figure and it has been accepted.

Mr. Burgin: The hon. Member, I am sure, wants to be scrupulously fair. The allegation made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) was that when the tender for £72 was put in, the sub-contractor was telephoned to and was told, "Put up your price by 50 per cent. and you will get the contract." Nothing of that kind ever happened at all, and Lord Nuffield would be intensely anxious to meet the man who said it.

Mr. Edwards: Nobody is impugning Lord Nuffield's honesty and integrity. He has nothing whatever to do with it. He has no more to do with this quotation or how it was arrived at than the Minister. It is no use pretending that my hon. Friend is attacking Lord Nuffield. At the time he had no idea that Lord Nuffield was connected with this at all. None of us had. It is only to-night that it has been stated, though a night or two ago I was given to understand that that might be the firm. But do not let us pretend that Lord Nuffield had anything to do with the quotation or knew anything about it. We have established this fact —that what my hon. Friend said is correct, namely, that somebody quoted £72 for this job and ultimately quoted double that price and that it was accepted. What the Minister says now is that such a statement was never made over the telephone. I did not expect when the Minister began to investigate this case that these people would come forward and say, "That is quite right; we were rather clumsy about it." I did not expect them to say, "We


told this man that he would have to wangle the price." They would not admit that they had made a mistake and that is perhaps the reason why the Minister is concerned to defend them, if he can honestly do it. He is concerned to give the impression that they could not have made a mistake, but it is not a question of a mistake being made.
All that has happened is that we have the Minister's word against my hon. Friend's, that no such conversation took place on the telephone as was stated, but here is the fact, and we must not attempt to escape from it. The last quotation given by my hon. Friend to-night is a letter from the gentleman interviewed by the Minister and he was asked a specific question, "Were you satisfied with £72 for that original specification?" and the answer was "Yes." The Minister must not smile. It will not excuse the Minister if somebody has made a mistake. It is all right for him to explain away all the difficulties on his side and not to listen to the facts on this side. But I am saying nothing that is not established fact—established by the Minister himself. The Minister has established that what my hon. Friend said was precisely the fact. He wants to eliminate a certain part of my hon. Friend's statement about the telephone conversation, but that is all. He admits that the difference between the first specification and the other specification was not sufficient to account for the increase in price. [Interruption.]No, that is not against me. If you get a firm with some dignity and reputation to uphold they are not going to admit that they made such a big blunder as that.
I am going to bring to the Minister's notice to-morrow another case about a big concern and one of the Government Departments. A quotation was asked for a certain forging. The people to whom I am referring quoted £160. Their representative was called into this Government Department and told, "That is a lot of money." We have heard about spoon-feeding but these firms are soon told, if their prices are too much. I have never heard of such a case in my whole experience as to tell a firm which had made a quotation, "You must not be spoon-fed, but you will have to quote a little more." In the case to which I have just referred, it was said, "If you will have that thing properly designed by your men, we can

deliver the same job for £40."That is another Government Department—a difference between £40 and £160—and I am going to bring that before the Minister. We are concerned about this, and I do not want the Minister to treat these matters too lightly or to think that his job is merely to justify people in this House. If anybody has made a mistake, it is his job to say so. Will he put these two specifications before my hon. Friend and myself and let us come to his Department and see them, alongside of Lord Nuffield's experts, if he likes? That would show willing. I shall be perfectly satisfied and will come back to this House and apologise if we have made a mistake, and if we have not made a mistake, will the Minister apologise? Will he accept that offer now?

Mr. Burgin: I do not know enough about the disclosure of specifications to non-contracting people to reply at once. I would like very much, if it were in my power, to accept the offer immediately, but I think hon. Members will understand that I would like to make inquiries first. I am not at all sure whether specifications for armaments are the sort of thing that ought to be disclosed. If it is in my power to disclose the two specifications, I would very much like to do it. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough talks of some mistake. There has never been a mistake on the part of the Nuffield Company at all, and the ultimate price of this Bofors mounting is not yet determined with either contractor A or contractor B, because it depends on the cost after it has been made. There is no mistake by the Nuffield Company. If there has been a mistake at all, it has been on the part of the sub-contractors.

Mr. Edwards: The Minister is answering the very case that I am asking to have an opportunity of judging for ourselves. All that we are asking the Minister to do is to give us facilities, and I understand that his answer is, if there is nothing against that—

Mr. Burgin: If there is no military reason why there should not take place an interview in my room at the Ministry, at which these documents can be tabled and the hon. Members for East Middles-brough and Ipswich can come and look at them, I should like to do it, but the hon. Members and the House will under-


stand that we are dealing with a main article of Defence, and I must in time of war take some elementary precautions to inform myself about the established practice.

Mr. Edwards: What I am asking is not that we shall have a casual look in his room—

Mr. Burgin: I did not mean that.

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend is used to dealing with specifications of this kind. I am not so much, but I am not without some experience of them. If they were presented to my hon. Friend's company to-morrow, he would want time to go into them. I dare say within one interview we could check up on that anyhow, but we would like to sit down at the job and to make a fair comparison between specifications Nos. 1 and 2, and find out whether the £72 has any relation whatever to the £220.

Mr. Burgin: I can say at once that the £73 and the £220 were on identical specifications.

Mr. Edwards: Then the firm who quoted £72 were so stupid, so utterly incompetent—

Mr. Burgin: Inexperience involves incompetence.

Mr. Edwards: But there is a difference in quotations on precisely the same specification between £72 and £220. Either one man has charged far too much or the other far too little. The Minister has agreed that after a fair investigation we will find out what would be a fair price. We are not going to have one or two experts in his own Department. We want an independent investigation, and it would be a good thing if the Government made this a test, because we are at the beginning of the war. The Minister has spent over £100,000,000, and it might avoid the expenditure of another £100,000,000 out of the pockets of the taxpayers and the men who are fighting at the front if we had such an investigation. We make a fair offer which has been accepted. After the examination either we shall come to the House and say that we are satisfied with the Minister's explanation, or he will come and say that these people have overcharged.

Mr. Burgin: Will the hon. Member realise what he is saying? How will the comparison of the original specification with the second one establish any other fact than whether sub-contractor B was or was not quoting too low in the first instance. How will it affect subcontractor A at all? I am only making this point because it is very right, when we have a Debate of this kind, that we should attempt to get at the facts so that we should not find ourselves at the end of the evening in a position in which we are not either of us getting what we are seeking. I warn the hon. Member now that any comparison between the £72 and the £140 will only have a bearing on subcontractor B. It will have no bearing whatever on sub-contractor A, on the Nuffield Company, or on the Ministry.

Mr. Edwards: We are going to establish whether the £72 or the £220 was a fair price. The other thing that we shall establish is this—and we must leave the House to judge, as the Chancellor of the Duchy said after discussing the matter on the first occasion—whether the request to quote on the revised specification was merely a way of covering up the whole job or, as my hon. Friend called it, jobbery? When the firm were asked to raise their price it was a different specification on which they quoted the higher price. The Minster has never given that explanation. We know that the firm quoted £72 and ultimately put in a price for £142, but we are told that they were told to do it or they would not get the job. That is a serious allegation. At the end of it the Minister might have come to the House and said, "That is quite right and I warned these people. I am going to take serious action if such a thing happens again." There would have been another way of overcoming it. It is that they thought it better to quote on a different specification so that they got a higher price.
We want to know whether there was such a difference in these specifications as to justify the higher price and whether it was an essential alteration. If we have got that out of this Debate it will have been worth while. I am satisfied, however, that we have the Minister's undertaking to do what I have asked and that we shall be able to establish an important fact which should be established on the Floor of the House. He has made very


serious allegations against my hon. Friend, or at least he has questioned his veracity, telling us that no such conversation on the telephone took place. My hon. Friend, after a lot of difficulty and trouble, got his friend to see the Minister. I believe my hon. Friend wanted to be present but was not given the privilege.

Mr. Burgin: There must be some limit to these ex parte statements. There is no foundation at all for that statement. The hon. Member for Ipswich wrote recently and asked whether he could be present on the next occasion with the manufacturer, and I at once offered him that opportunity. Really, the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough has not got hold of the point that when the manufacturer did come he did not confirm what the hon. Member for Ipswich had said.

Mr. Edwards: On the other hand, we have had the two letters, the first one saying he quoted the price on a given specification, and the last letter—the Minister cannot escape this, everything else is immaterial—in which my hon. Friend asked "Were you satisfied with the price you quoted on the original specification?" to which the manufacturer said "Yes." There is no question about that.

Mr. Burgin: No, I said it condemns sub-contractor B. If B, after recognising to the full that his first specification did not cover a number of the processes involved in making the article, now confirms that he was satisfied with his price of £72, it shows that he was more inaccurate than I have given him credit for.

Mr. Edwards: His revised price was on another specification and not the original one. What is the use of the Minister trying to mislead the House on that? He is given a specification and quotes a price, and he still says that he was satisfied with that price. The Minister says that he does not know what he is talking about. The Minister is not competent to say that, even with his advisers. We have agreed to-night that we want to test out his advisers. It is on record in this Debate that B said "I understood the specification, I knew what I was doing, I quoted £72, and it was a fair price." They only get out of it by asking him to quote upon another specification.

Mr. Markham: The hon. Member has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. He is confusing sub-contractor B with A. If he will stick to one or the other we may find a little commonsense in what he is saying.

Mr. Edwards: I am sorry if the hon. Member claims a prerogative of common-sense and denies it to everyone else. I have tried to be reasonable. I have given the Minister full credit and I do not think anyone will question that the gentleman who quoted £72 for a specified job admitted in the last letter which was quoted by my hon. Friend, that he is still satisfied with the £72 quotation which he gave. That is not questioned. Is there any lack of commonsense in that?

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Was that letter dated prior to the amended specification?

Mr. Stokes: 10th October.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: But was it prior to the amended specification?

Mr. Stokes: No, months afterwards.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Then he was satisfied with the estimate on the original specification, and the question between us is the first specification and the second specification.

Mr. Edwards: The point is that B was asked to quote on one specification and quotes on that specification, and stands by what he quoted on that specification. We believe, though we may be wrong, that the people responsible, having got into some difficulties, did not like to admit they had made a mistake. They claim infallibility. So they say, "Let us wash the whole thing out and put forward a new specification," on which he quoted £148, but the man still says, Had they not given me a second specification I would have been glad to carry out the original specification for £72."It is not true, as the Minister has tried to establish, that he did not know his job, was inexperienced and incompetent. He said, "I am satisfied," and the Minister said: "I am amazed at the man being more stupid than I thought he was." Is it not possible that the explanation may be that the man is saying as plainly as he can that the people who quoted £120 were just robbing the Government? Is not that the logical conclusion, as logical as that


of the Minister? It is all very well for the Minister to sit there and defend these people. It may be that these people were honest in asking £220 and that this man was just a fool. He may be a fool for all we know, but he comes out as a consistent fool, anyway. [Interruption.]The Government in certain Departments have been endeavouring to organise scarcity in the midst of plenty.
I am satisfied, having had this Debate, with the understanding with the Minister that we are to have an opportunity of looking at the original specification to see whether it was worth the £72, or whether it was worth £220. Perhaps he will not deprive us of the privilege and luxury of looking at specification number two. We may have a definite idea whether it was worth while to drag in a second specification; whether it was for honest purposes or to cover up something which was not straight dealing.

10.17 p.m.

Captain Hammersley: I have no desire to whitewash the Minister and no special knowledge in this case, but J happened to know something about the Bofors gun before the Minister of Supply had anything to do with it. It seems to me that the national interest in connection with the Bofors gun was simply that we should obtain supplies of that gun at reasonable prices within a reasonable period of time. As hon. Members know, the Bofors gun was manufactured by a foreign country, and Lord Nuffield made himself responsible for manufacturing it here. When he did so, he was warned that in respect of some of his estimates he was going to be much too optimistic. Those warnings, in fact, came true. I imagine that the fact that those warnings were realised is well known to the Ministry of Supply. It is very easy for a manufacturer of metal goods of various characters to receive a specification in respect of a specialised armament and to say that he can deliver a particular part at a particular time and to make the quotation to the best of his ability.
In respect of this mechanism, of a character that is extremely complicated, the original manufacturers warned the British manufacturers that the latter were much too optimistic in their quantities. Events have shown not only that they were optimistic but that a lot of their sub-contractors were optimistic. There-

fore, in this House, we have not to consider minute points; we have to consider the main point of the interest of the country, which is to get deliveries of this gun at reasonable prices in a reasonable time.

Mr. A. Edwards: Nobody questions that.

Captain Hammersley: I must make the point that price and period of delivery are important. I address myself to this problem with no special knowledge of this case, but with the knowledge that it is important, in a transaction of this character, to be assured that the manufacturers of the gun-mountings are really capable of carrying out the job. It is going to be no satisfaction to the Ministry of Supply to be able to tell a man that it may be 75 per cent. satisfactory but it may fail in some necessary part—in the machinery or in it's quality of steel. When it is put forward that this particular sub-contractor "A"is still satisfied that he would have been able to deliver the goods at £72 and has not in fact done so at a very much higher price, one must bear in mind that, these considerations having taken place and that the whole delivery of perhaps hundreds of guns is to be made, it is not in the national interest that the Minister of Supply should induce his contractors to place orders with subcontractors who may have very little experience, the result of which will be that the necessary armaments of the country are going to be delayed and that perhaps —this is the important part—they are going to fail in some vital characteristic.
I am not in a position to know anything about the rights and wrongs of this particular case, but I do know the history of the Bofors gun; I do know that definite promises were made with respect to delivery which were not carried out, and I know the country is suffering from it. It is the duty of the Minister of Supply to get deliveries of this gun at the earliest opportunity. I, therefore, support the attitude of the Minister in pointing out the necessity of the goods coming forward to specification and being produced by people who know their job.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Paling: I am rather befogged, and I think the Minister is responsible. I have been trying to think over what he said. I think he brought in a lot of irrelevant matter and did not stick closely


to the rather simple question that has to be solved. Like some of my hon. Friends behind me, I could not see what Lord Nuffield had to do with it. A very simple question has been asked, and the Minister was using a lot of verbiage in order to avoid the main issue. After the many allegations which have been made about profiteering and will probably continue to be made, if this is the kind of examination that is going to be made into those allegations I am wondering whether we shall get much satisfaction. Frankly,. I did not get much satisfaction from what the Minister said to-night, and I hope that hon. Members behind me will press the challenge which they have made to the Minister, in order to see whether we cannot get to the bottom of this matter. I was interested in the righteously indignant speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Markham). A man was pilloried because he made such a shocking mistake as to produce an article cheaply! I noted with what ease it was accepted that it should have been produced as dearly as possible, and that the price should have been made as high as possible.

Mr. Magnay: They could not have done it at a lower price.

Mr. Paling: The hon. Gentleman has made up his mind already that the price must be high. I hope that this matter will be examined from this angle. It is amazing to me, when a maximum price of £220 is quoted and a minimum of about £180, that a contractor who quotes a figure of £72 should not be given an opportunity of trying to do it. When I was on a local authority one of the things that we were instructed to do was seriously to consider the lowest tender. If we accepted a tender above it we had to account to the Department here. I think that might have been done in this case.

Captain Hammersley: Is the hon. Gentleman putting forward as a serious statement that if he knew as a fact, from his technical knowledge, that the price quoted was inadequate and that it would not produce the goods he would be prepared— it is only a part—to run the risk with the whole particular article?

Mr. Paling: I did not say anything of the kind. I am simply saying there were

two prices. It was accepted that the highest price must be right. It was not accepted that the lowest price could possibly be right. No one knows now which of the two is right. It is rather an unusual practice, when you get a low figure like that, to tell the contractor it is too low and he must alter it, because that is virtually what has been done. Lord Nuffield has been held out as a paragon of all the virtues, who knows what he is talking about. I accept that, and I accept that he knew that the firm he was asking to quote had some standing and that it was used to reading specifications and knew what they meant. I was interested also to hear the Minister say that they had not even gone to the trouble of reading the specification.

Mr. Burgin: I never said anything of the kind. I said they had not read it correctly. As a matter of fact £72 was less than the cost of the ingredients.

Mr. Paling: I do not know whether it was or not. Perhaps that will come out in the washing. It is an amazing thing to say about a firm of the standing of this firm that they do not know how to read a specification. I do not accept that. I am profoundly dissatisfied with the way the Minister has dealt with this business. I do not know which is right, but it cannot be allowed to rest where it is. Whether £72 or £148, £180 or £220 is the right figure, no one knows. We ought to get to know who is right and who is wrong, and which is the right price, and we ought to get to know whether this is the Minister's way of dealing with these questions when they are brought up and whether this is the manner in which he tries to suppress profiteering in any case brought to his notice. I am dissatisfied with his answer and I hope my Friends will press their challenge to an ultimate conclusion.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I think the House of Commons owes it to itself, certainly the Minister owes it to himself, to allow this matter to be threshed out till the truth is known. I want to pay a tribute to a previous incident in which I entered into correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman, which in many respects bears some similarity to the question now at issue between us. The local authority from the city that I represent received two tenders for the construction of a


bridge. One was no less than £27,000 below the other. The local authority said, just as Lord Nuffield said in the case we are considering, that because the one tender was £27,000 cheaper than the other it was impossible that the cheaper firm could build the bridge efficiently. I sent the papers and the facts to the Minister, and, to his credit, he investigated the whole matter, and the local authority of Aberdeen was saved £27,000. The bridge now stands a monument to the error of judgment of the local authority, the honesty of the Minister in having the matter threshed out, and the skill, let me say, of the much-maligned engineer who submitted the lowest tender.
As far as I have been able to follow these matters, there has been a great deal of confusion thrown over this issue. There is only one point on which there is any direct conflict of evidence as to fact: that is in reference to what was said in the telephone conversation; and it seems to me that is not a matter of the first import. It is agreed that the first figure quoted by sub-contractor B was £72. It is then agreed that the firm submitted a revised tender of £148. But, between those two figures, there are two factors to consider. One is the amendment of the specification, and the other is the re-studying of the revised specification by the sub-contracting firm. We want to know whether that revised specification was put in in order to obscure the crookedness of the rejection of the lower tender, or whether it was in fact due to a mistake in estimating on the part of the subcontracting firm B. The Minister has been good enough to say that, provided that no military secrets will be endangered, he is prepared to allow both specifications to be investigated —not only, I am sure, by my two hon. Friends, unaided by expert costing accountants. But he ought to go into all the matters which are actually at issue, except the telephone, conversation—and there, where we are dealing with purely hearsay evidence, it is not of sufficient importance to worry about what actually took place.
Moreover, I submit that no military secret can be endangered. This gun was being made in foreign countries, and its plans and specifications are availabe to hundreds of British citizens. I am certain that there can be no substantial danger in adding to the number who

already know those plans my two hon. Friends and the expert accountants who will assist them. I appeal to hon. Members, for the credit of the House of Commons, to see that these things are threshed out. By their very nature it is difficult to get to the core of facts, but there are many charges of racketeering in armaments. We all have dossiers of rumours. I have many which appal me, but I am not able to bring them up because of the difficulty of getting proof. I hope that this matter will be fully threshed out.

Mr. A. Edwards: The impression may have been given, as a result of this Debate, that someone here was attacking Lord Nuffield. May I say that the Minister was the first to mention him? When we began the Debate we did not know that he was concerned, and not a word has been said against him.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Burgin: With permission, may I say one word more? My point in mentioning Lord Nuffield as the contractor was to clear away the idea that there was any profiteering motive. My mention of his name was followed by my mentioning that this was an agency. I thought that it was important to mention the name of the contractor, who is the personification of integrity, in order to show that there was no profiteering motive. I am sorry that my method of investigation should have so displeased the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling). I have gone to great pains to get to the bottom of the whole thing. I have had the manufacturer and his staff down time after time in order to go into the whole of the facts. If the allegation that the man was told to put up his price by a specific percentage is withdrawn, and all we are really investigating is whether £72, or £142 or £180 is the correct price, it is a much easier investigation. But it was put from the start as an allegation that the manufacturer had himself prevailed upon the sub-contractor to increase his tender by a given percentage, and nothing of that kind obtained.
The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) spoke about thrashing this matter out. No one would be happier. I have done everything a Minister in a Department can do to thrash it out. Hon. Members opposite have suggested


some further discussion on documents which in their view would help. I think they are completely mistaken in thinking that they have any relevancy to or bearing on the transaction at all. I have promised that I will look into it. The hon. Member must remember that when we are making a Continental gun we always improve it. The Bren gun or anything else which is made here is not the original method. Changes are going on. Therefore there may be a military difficulty, and I do not want it to be attributed to me that there is obstruction if there is such a military obstruction. Profiteering, whether small or large, is equally distasteful, equally serious and is equally being investigated. I come back to this—it is my responsibility to deliver these Bofors guns, and I am impressed with the fact that contractor A, against whom so much has been said to-night, the

man who tendered for £220 and has cut it down to £180, has made deliveries and is up to time. I have not yet had other deliveries. The more contracts I can get of the "A"type delivered, the better will the armies in the field be supplied with weapons of defence.

Mr. Paling: The Minister accused me of lack of courtesy and I did not intend anything of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman is the very essence of courtesy. I said that I did not think that the methods he used in this case were likely to prove whether profiteering existed or not.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes before Eleven o'clock.